Despite the ability of the cosmological concordance model ($\Lambda$CDM) to describe the cosmological observations exceedingly well, power law expansion of the Universe scale radius, $R(t)\propto t^n$, has been proposed as an alternative framework. We examine here these models, analyzing their ability to fit cosmological data using robust model comparison criteria. Type Ia supernovae (SNIa), baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) and acoustic scale information from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have been used. We find that SNIa data either alone or combined with BAO can be well reproduced by both $\Lambda$CDM and power law expansion models with $n\sim 1.5$, while the constant expansion rate model $(n=1)$ is clearly disfavored. Allowing for some redshift evolution in the SNIa luminosity essentially removes any clear preference for a specific model. The CMB data are well known to provide the most stringent constraints on standard cosmological models, in particular, through the position of the first peak of the temperature angular power spectrum, corresponding to the sound horizon at recombination, a scale physically related to the BAO scale. Models with $n\geq 1$ lead to a divergence of the sound horizon and do not naturally provide the relevant scales for the BAO and the CMB. We retain an empirical footing to overcome this issue: we let the data choose the preferred values for these scales, while we recompute the ionization history in power law models, to obtain the distance to the CMB. In doing so, we find that the scale coming from the BAO data is not consistent with the observed position of the first peak of the CMB temperature angular power spectrum for any power law cosmology. Therefore, we conclude that when the three standard probes are combined, the $\Lambda$CDM model is very strongly favored over any of these alternative models, which are then essentially ruled out.

General relativistic kinematics and the cosmological principle alone imply a monotonicity constraint in the Hubble diagram, which we confront to present-day supernova data. We use the running gradient method of statistical inference by Hall & Heckman (2000). We find no significant departure from monotonicity. The method seems well adapted and we recommend its use with future data.