Synthetic data algorithms are widely employed in industries to generate artificial data for downstream learning tasks. While existing research primarily focuses on empirically evaluating utility of synthetic data, its theoretical understanding is largely lacking. This paper bridges the practice-theory gap by establishing relevant utility theory in a statistical learning framework. It considers two utility metrics: generalization and ranking of models trained on synthetic data. The former is defined as the generalization difference between models trained on synthetic and on real data. By deriving analytical bounds for this utility metric, we demonstrate that the synthetic feature distribution does not need to be similar as that of real data for ensuring comparable generalization of synthetic models, provided proper model specifications in downstream learning tasks. The latter utility metric studies the relative performance of models trained on synthetic data. In particular, we discover that the distribution of synthetic data is not necessarily similar as the real one to ensure consistent model comparison. Interestingly, consistent model comparison is still achievable even when synthetic responses are not well generated, as long as downstream models are separable by a generalization gap. Finally, extensive experiments on non-parametric models and deep neural networks have been conducted to validate these theoretical findings.