This paper investigates how the measurement of money affects the empirical support for the balanced-growth framework incorporating money. The analysis tests the framework’s three long-run restrictions using real output, consumption, investment, real money balances, and monetary aggregate-specific user costs. I consider four monetary definitions: simple-sum, original Divisia, credit-augmented Divisia, and credit-augmented Divisia inside. Four aggregation levels are used for each Divisia definition and two for simple-sum, yielding 14 monetary aggregates, each paired with its corresponding user cost. Using the U.S. quarterly data through 2026, the Johansen maximum likelihood procedure identifies the long-run relationships and tests the theoretical restrictions. The results show that credit-augmented Divisia aggregates provide more frequent support for the money demand restriction than simple-sum and original Divisia aggregates. The other two restrictions remain unsupported across all four monetary definitions. These findings contribute to the discussion of monetary measurement and the empirical foundations of the balanced-growth framework incorporating money.