Prescriptive business process monitoring provides decision support to process managers on when and how to adapt an ongoing business process to prevent or mitigate an undesired process outcome. We focus on the problem of automatically reconciling the trade-off between prediction accuracy and prediction earliness in determining when to adapt. Adaptations should happen sufficiently early to provide enough lead time for the adaptation to become effective. However, earlier predictions are typically less accurate than later predictions. This means that acting on less accurate predictions may lead to unnecessary adaptations or missed adaptations. Different approaches were presented in the literature to reconcile the trade-off between prediction accuracy and earliness. So far, these approaches were compared with different baselines, and evaluated using different data sets or even confidential data sets. This limits the comparability and replicability of the approaches and makes it difficult to choose a concrete approach in practice. We perform a comparative evaluation of the main alternative approaches for reconciling the trade-off between prediction accuracy and earliness. Using four public real-world event log data sets and two types of prediction models, we assess and compare the cost savings of these approaches. The experimental results indicate which criteria affect the effectiveness of an approach and help us state initial recommendations for the selection of a concrete approach in practice.