A recurring debate in the philosophy of statistics concerns what, exactly, should count as a measure of evidence for or against a given hypothesis. P-values, likelihood ratios, and Bayes factors all have their defenders. In this paper we add two additional candidates to this list: the e-value and its sequential analogue, the e-process. E-values enjoy several desirable properties as measures of evidence: they combine naturally across studies, handle composite hypotheses, provide long-run error rates, and admit a useful interpretation as the wealth accrued by a bettor in a game against the null distribution. E-processes additionally handle optional stopping and optional continuation. This work examines the extent to which e-values and e-processes satisfy the evidential desiderata of different statistical traditions, concluding that they combine attractive features of p-values, likelihood ratios, and Bayes factors, and merit serious consideration as interpretable and intuitive measures of statistical evidence.