In this recently published correspondence in The Lancet, the IMPACT AMR team highlights the growing urgency for prioritisation of action on AMR, given increasingly limited resources. The revised Global Action Plan and revised National Action Plans must be evidence-informed, and there is a growing evidence base on AMR. However, knowing which actions will be most impactful in a given setting requires additional transdisciplinary expertise – in prioritisation. This should bring together evidence of effectiveness of actions with their costs and the feasibility of implementation from diverse perspectives, including technical, behavioural and political. It should also consider wider impacts of interventions aimed at minimising the burden of AMR, that may include co-benefits for other goals as well as potential harms, including to some particular groups. The correspondence highlights similarities between AMR and the global climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, demanding for evidence at different scales to foster engagement with the private sector and to guide public policy. This offers models for prioritisation that may be applicable to AMR and can inform the development of a framework to curate evidence using criteria developed through consensus building across disciplines and different stakeholders. The correspondence signposts readers to the IMPACT AMR Network,  aiming to move towards answering a crucial question ‘where should limited resources be allocated to have the greatest effect on the burden of AMR?’.