How humans and animals distribute their behavior across choice options has been of key interest to economics, psychology, ecology, and related fields. Neoclassical and behavioral economics have provided prescriptions for how decision-makers can maximize their reward or utility, but these formalisms are used by decision-makers rarely. Instead, individuals allocate their behavior in proportion to the worth of their options, a phenomenon captured by the generalized matching law. Why biological decision-makers adopt this strategy has been unclear. To provide insight into this issue, this article evaluates the performance of matching across a broad spectrum of decision situations, using simulations. Matching is found to attain a high or near-optimal gain, and the strategy achieves this level of performance following a single evaluation of the decision options. Thus, matching provides highly efficient decisions across a wide range of choice environments. This result offers a quantitative explanation for the broad adoption of matching by biological decision-makers.