Since the U.S. 2013/14 influenza season, the CDC’s FluSight Challenge has provided a platform for evaluating influenza forecasting models and fostering collaboration across institutions. The Challenge aims to improve the science and enhance the utility of infectious disease forecasts for public health decision making. We analyzed ten years of submitted forecasts (2014/15-2019/20 (influenza-like illness seasons) and 2021/22-2024/25 (hospital admissions seasons)) across a range of model types, including statistical, mechanistic, machine learning, and hybrid models. Influenza-like illness (ILI) forecasts were evaluated using the exponentiated logarithmic score (skill metric) while hospital admissions forecasts were evaluated using the log transformed relative Weighted Interval Score. Corresponding potential performance differences were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and associations with team participation history were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation. Model performance varied by season, and no single model type consistently outperformed others. In ILI seasons, statistical models generally performed better than mechanistic and machine learning models, though consistent differences were not observed in more recent hospital admissions seasons. Ensemble forecasts showed better overall performance across seasons, and the CDC’s FluSight ensemble ranked among the top-performing forecasts every year. We also found a positive correlation between forecast accuracy and the number of years a team participated in the Challenge, with statistically significant associations in four seasons. These findings highlight the benefits of ensemble approaches and sustained engagement in improving forecasting performance, while also underscoring the continued value of forecast evaluation before and following the COVID-19 pandemic. Insights from the FluSight Challenge can guide future infectious disease forecasting efforts and support more effective public health preparedness.