This paper presents empirical findings from the comparison between two principal preference elicitation techniques: discrete choice experiments and profile-based best–worst scaling. Best–worst scaling involves less cognitive burden for respondents and provides more information than traditional “pick-one” tasks asked in discrete choice experiments. However, there is lack of empirical evidence on how best–worst scaling compares to discrete choice experiments. This empirical comparison between discrete choice experiments and best–worst scaling was undertaken as part of the Outcomes of Social Care for Adults project, England, which aims to develop a weighted measure of social care outcomes. The findings show that preference weights from best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments do reveal similar patterns in preferences and in the majority of cases preference weights – when normalised/rescaled – are not significantly different. ► Illustrates key issues that are important in choosing between profile-case best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiment studies. ► Empirical research on the value of outcomes of social care reveals similar patterns in the preference weights obtained from the two approaches. ► In the majority of cases examined, preference weights are not significantly different once the weights have been appropriately normalised/rescaled.