Recently, the notion that most metaphysical theses are necessary has been challenged by a number of authors. This article considers two different routes to contingentism in metaphysics. The first is via a combination of conceptual analysis and empirical discoveries; the second is via synthetic metaphysical claims. The last of these has the potential to yield contingent truths if each of competing metaphysical theses turn out to be the best theory in different possible worlds. This article considers each of these routes in turn, and considers the extent to which either yields a tractable epistemology of contingent claims.