Nonstationary extreme value analysis (NEVA) can improve the statistical representation of observed flood peak distributions compared to stationary (ST) analysis, but management of flood risk relies on predictions of out‐of‐sample distributions for which NEVA has not been comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we apply split‐sample testing to 1250 annual maximum discharge records in the United States and compare the predictive capabilities of NEVA relative to ST extreme value analysis using a log‐Pearson Type III (LPIII) distribution. The parameters of the LPIII distribution in the ST and nonstationary (NS) models are estimated from the first half of each record using Bayesian inference. The second half of each record is reserved to evaluate the predictions under the ST and NS models. The NS model is applied for prediction by (1) extrapolating the trend of the NS model parameters throughout the evaluation period and (2) using the NS model parameter values at the end of the fitting period to predict with an updated ST model (uST). Our analysis shows that the ST predictions are preferred, overall. NS model parameter extrapolation is rarely preferred. However, if fitting period discharges are influenced by physical changes in the watershed, for example from anthropogenic activity, the uST model is strongly preferred relative to ST and NS predictions. The uST model is therefore recommended for evaluation of current flood risk in watersheds that have undergone physical changes. Supporting information includes a MATLAB® program that estimates the (ST/NS/uST) LPIII parameters from annual peak discharge data through Bayesian inference. Key Points Stationary predictions of flood peak distributions are preferred, overall Extrapolation of the nonstationary model parameter trend rarely improves the stationary prediction, even if an observed trend continues Using the most recent nonstationary parameters to predict with an updated stationary model is preferred for physically changing watersheds