Every species occupies a limited geographic area, but it remains unclear why traits that limit distribution do not evolve to allow range expansion. Hypotheses for the evolutionary stability of geographic ranges assume that species are maladapted at the range boundary and unfit beyond the current range, but this assumption has rarely been tested. To examine how fitness varies across species' ranges, we reciprocally transplanted two species of monkeyflowers, Mimulus cardinalis and M. lewisii, within and beyond their present elevation ranges. We used individuals of known parentage from populations collected across the elevation ranges of both species to examine whether populations are adapted to position within the range. For both species we found the greatest average fitness at elevations central within the range, reduced fitness at the range margin, and zero or near-zero fitness when transplanted beyond their present elevation range limits. However, the underlying causes of fitness variation differed between the species. At high elevations beyond its range, M. cardinalis displayed reduced growth and fecundity, whereas at low elevations M. lewisii experienced high mortality. Weak differences in performance were observed among populations within each species and these were not related to elevation of origin. Low fitness of both species at their range margin and weak differentiation among populations within each species suggest that adaptation to the environment at and beyond the range margin is hindered, illustrating that range margins provide an interesting system in which to study limits to adaptation.