Evaluation of the performance of hydrologic and hydraulic models is a crucial step in the modeling process. Considering the limitations of single statistical metrics, such as the Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), the Kling Gupta efficiency (KGE), and the coefficient of determination (R2), which are widely used in the evaluation of model performance, an evaluation framework that incorporates multiple criteria and based on the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) is proposed to demonstrate the uncertainty in the evaluation criteria and hence to quantify the overall uncertainty of flood models in a comprehensive way. This framework is applied to the one-dimensional HEC-RAS models of six reaches located in States of Indiana and Texas of the United States to quantify the uncertainty associated with the channel roughness and upstream flow input. Specifically, the effects of different prior distributions of the uncertainty sources, multiple high-flow scenarios, and various types of measurement errors (white noise, positive bias, and negative bias) in observations on the evaluation metrics are investigated by using the bootstrapping method and Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the model performances based on the uniform and normal priors are comparable. The distributions of all the evaluation metrics in the framework are significantly different for the flood model under different high-flow scenarios, and it further indicates that the metrics are essentially random statistical variables. Additionally, the white-noise error in observations has the least impact on the metrics, while the positive and the negative biases would have opposite impacts, which depends on whether the model overestimated or underestimated the hydrologic variable.