Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current gold-standard invasive assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). FFR reports coronary blood flow (CBF) as a fraction of a hypothetical and unknown normal value. Although used routinely to diagnose CAD and guide treatment, how accurately FFR predicts actual CBF changes remains unknown. Here we compared fractional CBF with the absolute CBF (aCBF in mL/min), measured with a computational method during standard angiography and pressure-wire assessment, on 203 diseased arteries (143 patients). We found a substantial correlation between the two measurements (r 0.89, Cohen's Kappa 0.71). Concordance between fractional and absolute CBF reduction was high when FFR was >0.80 (91%), but reduced when FFR was ≤0.80 (81%), 0.70-0.80 (68%) and, particularly 0.75-0.80 (62%). Discordance was associated with coronary microvascular resistance, vessel diameter and mass of myocardium subtended, all factors to which FFR is agnostic. Assessment of aCBF complements FFR, and may be valuable to assess CBF, particularly in cases within the FFR 'grey-zone'.