Studies focusing on the numerical modelling of geotechnical profiles with potentially liquefiable soils will often focus on acceleration and pore pressure responses. If numerical models are being validated using experimental data, researchers usually need to compare measured and modelled responses in order to assess the modelling assumptions or to select a best-fit model. Early studies typically based this comparison on qualitative judgement that can introduce potential bias and may vary from person to person. Several researchers have subsequently proposed quantitative criteria to minimize the subjective influence and standardize the comparison process, with most focused on the comparison of acceleration time series. This paper presents the development and validation of a quantitative criterion to compare the experimental and numerical pore pressure time series. The criterion evaluates the goodness-of-fit between pore pressure time series as a weighted overall score based on five parameters: average difference, maximum pore pressure, time to reach steady pore pressure, pore pressure integral, and dynamic time warping. A sensitivity analysis is used to investigate how different factors, such as magnitudes and noise, influence the criterion evaluation. The quantitative results are then compared with subjective opinions to validate the criterion applicability. The results indicate that the proposed quantitative criterion evaluates consistent results as the qualitative judgement, and the amplitude misfit is the dominant factor that influences the goodness-of-fit.