As with many other institutions, our company maintains many quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) end points and updates the models regularly. We recently examined version-to-version predictivity for these models over a period of 10 years. In this approach we monitor the goodness of prediction of new molecules relative to the training set of model version V before they are incorporated in the updated model V+1. Using a cell-based permeability assay (Papp) as an example, we illustrate how the QSAR models made from this data are generally predictive and can be utilized to enrich chemical designs and synthesis. Despite the obvious utility of these models, we turned up unexpected behavior in Papp and other ADMET activities for which the explanation is not obvious. One such behavior is that the apparent predictivity of the models as measured by root-mean-square-error can vary greatly from version to version and is sometimes very poor. One intuitively appealing explanation is that the observed activities of the new molecules fall outside the bulk of activities in the training set. Alternatively, one may think that the new molecules are exploring different regions of chemical space than the training set. However, the real explanation has to do with activity cliffs. If the observed activities of the new molecules are different than expected based on similar molecules in the training set, the predictions will be less accurate. This is true for all our ADMET end points.