As neural networks become more popular, the need for accompanying uncertainty estimates increases. There are currently two main approaches to test the quality of these estimates. Most methods output a density. They can be compared by evaluating their loglikelihood on a test set. Other methods output a prediction interval directly. These methods are often tested by examining the fraction of test points that fall inside the corresponding prediction intervals. Intuitively both approaches seem logical. However, we demonstrate through both theoretical arguments and simulations that both ways of evaluating the quality of uncertainty estimates have serious flaws. Firstly, both approaches cannot disentangle the separate components that jointly create the predictive uncertainty, making it difficult to evaluate the quality of the estimates of these components. Secondly, a better loglikelihood does not guarantee better prediction intervals, which is what the methods are often used for in practice. Moreover, the current approach to test prediction intervals directly has additional flaws. We show why it is fundamentally flawed to test a prediction or confidence interval on a single test set. At best, marginal coverage is measured, implicitly averaging out overconfident and underconfident predictions. A much more desirable property is pointwise coverage, requiring the correct coverage for each prediction. We demonstrate through practical examples that these effects can result in favoring a method, based on the predictive uncertainty, that has undesirable behaviour of the confidence or prediction intervals. Finally, we propose a simulation-based testing approach that addresses these problems while still allowing easy comparison between different methods.