4 Alternative Survey Methods To MaxDiff Analysis (Examples)
“The four best alternatives to MaxDiff analysis are pairwise comparison, ranked choice voting, points allocation and conjoint analysis. All four are comparison-based ranking methods, like MaxDiff itself, so they force a trade-off rather than letting people rate everything highly.”
Pairwise comparison is the closest substitute: it works almost identically to MaxDiff but shows two options at a time instead of three or more, which makes voting quicker and simpler. Ranked choice voting is the easiest for short lists of 6 to 10. Points allocation adds something MaxDiff can't give you, the magnitude of preference, not just the order. Conjoint analysis is the most capable and the most complex, for ranking products made of multiple attributes. MaxDiff is also known as best-worst scaling, and every method here runs on the OpinionX free tier.
Why look for a MaxDiff alternative?
MaxDiff analysis, also called best-worst scaling, shows people a subset of options and asks them to pick the best and the worst in each set. (We've written our own full guide to best-worst scaling too.) It's an excellent way to rank a long list by preference, but it isn't always the right fit.
You might want an alternative because your list is short enough that a full ranking is simpler, because you need the magnitude of preference rather than just the order, because your options span multiple categories, or because the tool you're using puts MaxDiff behind a paywall while offering a simpler method for free.
Whatever the reason, four comparison-based methods rank preferences the same way MaxDiff does, by forcing a trade-off. That shared principle is what makes them genuine alternatives rather than different tools for different jobs. A rating scale, by contrast, lets people score everything highly and tells you nothing, which is central tendency bias.
This guide is for someone who has landed on MaxDiff and wants a simpler or cheaper route to the same answer. If you started from conjoint analysis instead, the conjoint alternatives guide is the one you want.
The 4 MaxDiff alternatives at a glance
| Method | How it compares to MaxDiff | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Pairwise comparison | Nearly identical, but 2 options per vote instead of 3+ | You want the simplest possible version of MaxDiff |
| Ranked choice voting | Shows the whole list at once, no subsets | Your list is short, 6 to 10 options |
| Points allocation | Adds magnitude of preference, which MaxDiff can't | You need to know how much more, not just which |
| Conjoint analysis | Ranks multi-attribute products, far more complex | Your options are products made of several features |
Alternative 1: Pairwise comparison
Pairwise comparison ranks a list by comparing options in a series of head-to-head pair votes. Count the percentage of pairs an option wins and you have a preference ranking from best to worst.
It works almost identically to MaxDiff, but with two options per vote instead of three or more, which makes the voting quicker and easier. That lower cognitive load is the main reason to prefer it, especially when your options are long or complex statements that would be overwhelming to read three at a time.
OpinionX runs pairwise comparison on the free tier, including an image-based version where you rank pictures instead of text.
Alternative 2: Ranked choice voting
Ranked choice voting, the same family used in ranked voting elections, gives each participant the full list and asks them to put it in order of preference. It's the simplest of the four, and the one most people already understand without instruction.
It has one real limitation: keep it to 6 to 10 options. Beyond that, asking someone to rank a long list becomes overwhelming and data quality drops, so switch to MaxDiff or pairwise comparison, both built for long lists. Ranking is also awkward on a phone, though OpinionX lets people rank by tapping, dragging or using arrows.
Alternative 3: Points allocation
MaxDiff and pairwise comparison both estimate preferences relative to each other, but neither tells you whether the whole list is a strong batch or a weak one in absolute terms. That's what points allocation, also called constant sum, adds.
It gives each participant a pool of points to distribute across the options however best represents their preferences, so you see not just the relative order but the magnitude of preference. It tells you more than the fact that Simon prefers apples to bananas; it shows he'd put 9 of his 10 points on apples.
That makes it the right pick when you need to know how much more one option is worth than another, not just which comes first.
Alternative 4: Conjoint analysis
Conjoint analysis is a multi-attribute ranking method, also known as discrete choice modelling. Participants vote on profiles that each combine several variables, which lets you work out how important different features of a product are to a buyer.
Conjoint can rank the importance of a phone's battery life, storage and colour, while at the same time ranking the options within each: black against white against rose gold. It's more complex than MaxDiff or the other methods here, and on most platforms much more expensive too, since specialist conjoint tools are priced for enterprise research teams. Our conjoint tools comparison has the current prices, and it comes in several types if you want to go deeper.
OpinionX runs conjoint on the free tier, which is rare, so if conjoint is where you're heading you can test it without a budget first.
How do you score each method?
Each of these produces a ranking, but the scoring differs, and it's worth knowing how so you can sanity-check your results.
| Method | How it's scored |
|---|---|
| MaxDiff | (best votes − worst votes) ÷ appearances |
| Pairwise comparison | Pairs won ÷ pairs the option appeared in |
| Ranked choice voting | Points by rank position, averaged per option |
| Points allocation | Total points per option, averaged by participant |
For MaxDiff specifically: subtract the number of times an option was picked worst from the number of times it was picked best, then divide by how many voting sets it appeared in. An option that appeared in 100 sets, picked best 60 times and worst 10, scores (60 − 10) ÷ 100 = 0.5.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best alternative to MaxDiff analysis? Pairwise comparison, for most people. It works almost exactly like MaxDiff but shows two options per vote instead of three or more, which is simpler for participants and better suited to long or complex statements. It produces the same kind of preference ranking.
Is MaxDiff the same as best-worst scaling? Yes. Best-worst scaling is the academic name for the method; MaxDiff is the name most survey tools use. They're the same thing: showing a subset of options and asking for the best and worst in each.
Which MaxDiff alternative is best for a short list? Ranked choice voting, for lists of 6 to 10 options. It shows the whole list at once and asks people to order it, which is simple and intuitive. Past 10 options, switch to pairwise comparison or MaxDiff.
Which alternative shows how much people prefer something, not just the order? Points allocation, also called constant sum. It gives people a pool of points to spend across the options, so you see the magnitude of preference rather than only the ranking.
Can you run these methods for free? Yes. Pairwise comparison, ranked choice voting, points allocation and conjoint analysis all run on the OpinionX free tier at $0, with unlimited surveys and a cap of 25 participants per survey.
There's no reason to stay stuck on MaxDiff when simpler and cheaper methods reach the same answer. Pairwise comparison is the closest match, ranked choice voting is easiest for short lists, points allocation adds magnitude, and conjoint handles multi-attribute products.
Want more like this? Over 42,000 researchers and product people get The Full-Stack Researcher in their inbox. Subscribe for the next one.
Every method here runs on OpinionX's free tier: $0, unlimited surveys, unlimited researcher seats, capped at 25 participants per survey, then $900 a year to lift the cap (full pricing). Create a ranking survey, or read the full MaxDiff guide first.