The UPPS‐P model of impulsivity is gaining popularity among personality and substance use researchers, but questions remain as to whether its five facets have incremental validity in explaining substance use over a more parsimonious model specifying only two facets: reward drive and rash impulsiveness. In three cross‐sectional studies (total N = 486), we investigated whether the novel components of the UPPS‐P model (negative Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation seeking, Positive urgency) predicted typical and problematic alcohol and cannabis use after accounting for reward drive, rash impulsiveness and trait neuroticism (assessed with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire). Reward drive and rash impulsiveness scores were calculated using principal components analysis of multiple scales, including UPPS‐P premeditation and sensation seeking. Results showed that rash impulsiveness was a robust predictor of typical and problematic substance use. The novel facets of the UPPS‐P did not improve prediction of typical substance use. The urgency scales inconsistently predicted problematic use. Specifically, negative urgency predicted one of three measures of negative consequences from alcohol use, and positive urgency only predicted negative consequences from cannabis use. Results suggest that the three novel facets of the UPPS‐P model add little over a two component model in explaining substance use, although may provide preliminary evidence for the utility of a revised global urgency construct in explaining problematic substance use. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology