The win ratio has been studied methodologically and applied in data analysis and in designing clinical trials. Researchers have pointed out that the results depend on follow-up time and censoring time, which are sometimes used interchangeably. In this article, we distinguish between follow-up time and censoring time, show theoretically the impact of censoring on the win ratio, and illustrate the impact of follow-up time. We then point out that, if the treatment has long-term benefit from a more important but less frequent endpoint (eg, death), the win ratio can show that benefit by following patients longer, avoiding masking by more frequent but less important outcomes, which occurs in conventional time-to-first-event analyses. For the situation of nonproportional hazards, we demonstrate that the win ratio can be a good alternative to methods such as landmark survival rate, restricted mean survival time, and weighted log-rank tests.