Reconstructing evolutionary histories requires accurate phylogenetic trees. Recent simulation studies suggest that probabilistic phylogenetic analyses of morphological data are more accurate than traditional parsimony techniques. Here we use empirical data to compare Bayesian and parsimony phylogenies in terms of their congruence with the distribution of age ranges of the component taxa. Analysis of 167 independent morphological data matrices of fossil tetrapods finds that Bayesian trees exhibit significantly lower stratigraphic congruence than the equivalent parsimony trees. As such, taking stratigraphic data as an independent benchmark indicates that parsimony analyses are more accurate for phylogenetic reconstruction of morphological data. The discrepancy between simulated and empirical studies may result from historic data peaking practises or some complexities of empirical data as yet unaccounted for.