Geographically weighted regression (GWR) is a technique that explores spatial nonstationarity in data‐generating processes by allowing regression coefficients to vary spatially. It is a widely applied technique across domains because it is intuitive and conforms to the well‐understood framework of regression. An alternative method to GWR that has been suggested is spatial filtering, which it has been argued provides a superior alternative to GWR by producing spatially varying regression coefficients that are not correlated with each other and which display less spatial autocorrelation. It is, therefore, worthwhile to examine these claims by comparing the output from both methods. We do this by using simulated data that represent two sets of spatially varying processes and examining how well both techniques replicate the known local parameter values. The article finds no support that spatial filtering produces local parameter estimates with superior properties. The results indicate that the original spatial filtering specification is prone to overfitting and is generally inferior to GWR, while an alternative specification that minimizes the mean square error (MSE) of coefficient estimates produces results that are similar to GWR. However, since we generally do not know the true coefficients, the MSE minimizing specification is impractical for applied research.