In machine learning (ML), it is common to account for multiple objectives when, e.g., selecting a model to deploy. However, it is often unclear how one should compare, aggregate and, ultimately, trade-off these objectives, as they might be measured in different units or scales. For example, when deploying large language models (LLMs), we might not only care about their performance, but also their CO2 consumption. In this work, we investigate how objectives can be sensibly compared and aggregated to navigate their Pareto front. To do so, we propose to make incomparable objectives comparable via their CDFs, approximated by their relative rankings. This allows us to aggregate them while matching user-specific preferences, allowing practitioners to meaningfully navigate and search for models in the Pareto front. We demonstrate the potential impact of our methodology in diverse areas such as LLM selection, domain generalization, and AutoML benchmarking, where classical ways to aggregate and normalize objectives fail.