Direct comparison
QS vs THE vs ARWU Rankings Compared
QS, THE and ARWU score universities on different inputs, from reputation surveys to Nobel Prizes. Compare all three ranking methodologies side by side.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask about QS vs THE vs ARWU Rankings Compared
Answers are drawn from this comparison and the rest of the CASRAI corpus, with a link to every source.
Answers are AI-generated from CASRAI’s own published pages and can be wrong, so check the linked sources before relying on one; your question is logged without personal data — never sold, never used to train a third-party model — to show us what CASRAI is missing, so please do not type personal or confidential details. How we use this
How do QS World University Rankings, THE World University Rankings, ARWU (ShanghaiRanking) compare side by side?
The table below compares QS World University Rankings, THE World University Rankings, ARWU (ShanghaiRanking) across 13 procurement-relevant dimensions, from publisher through best suited for.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | QS World University Rankings | THE World University Rankings | ARWU (ShanghaiRanking) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) | Times Higher Education | ShanghaiRanking Consultancy (originally Shanghai Jiao Tong University) |
| What it primarily measures | Reputation (academic + employer surveys), research citations, internationalization, employability | Teaching environment, research environment and quality, international outlook, industry engagement | Hard research output and prestige-award counts -- no survey data at all |
| Number of scored indicators | 9 weighted indicators (a 10th, International Student Diversity, is reported but unweighted) | 18 indicators across 5 pillars (one, study abroad, currently carries zero weight) | 6 indicators |
| Reputation-survey weight | 45% (Academic Reputation 30% + Employer Reputation 15%) | Included inside Research Environment and Teaching pillars (research reputation alone is 18% of the total); no single standalone reputation figure | 0% -- ARWU uses no survey data of any kind |
| Citation / research-quality weight | 20% (Citations per Faculty, Scopus-sourced) | 30% (Research Quality pillar: citation impact, research strength, research excellence, research influence) | 40% combined (N&S papers 20% + general publication count PUB 20%) |
| Prestige-award component | None | None | 30% combined (Alumni winning Nobel/Fields 10% + Award: staff winning Nobel/Fields 20%) |
| International-outlook component | 15% combined (International Faculty Ratio, International Student Ratio, International Research Network at 5% each) | 7.5% (international students, international staff, international collaboration) | None |
| Employability / industry component | 10% combined (Employment Outcomes 5% + Employer Reputation counted above under reputation) | 4% (industry income + patents) | None |
| Sustainability component | 5% (added in recent editions) | Not a scored pillar (THE publishes a separate Impact Rankings for SDG performance) | Not scored |
| Per-institution size adjustment | Faculty-Student Ratio only | Staff-to-student ratio within the Teaching pillar | Yes -- Per Capita Performance (PCP, 10%) normalizes the weighted score by full-time academic staff |
| Primary data sources | QS reputation surveys, Scopus/Elsevier citation data, institution-submitted data | THE reputation survey, Elsevier Scopus citation data, institution-submitted data | Clarivate Highly Cited Researchers list, Web of Science SCIE/SSCI index, Nobel Prize and Fields Medal records -- no institution-submitted data |
| Institutions actually scored vs. published | Ranks roughly 1,500 institutions | Ranks roughly 2,000+ institutions | Scores 2,500+, publishes the top 1,000 |
| Best suited for | A broad view weighted toward reputation and global outlook -- useful for prospective students and employer-facing comparisons | A balanced view across teaching, research, and knowledge transfer -- useful for institutional benchmarking | A narrow, survey-free view of raw research prestige and output -- useful when you specifically want to exclude subjective reputation input |
Common questions
Common questions about QS World University Rankings vs THE World University Rankings vs ARWU (ShanghaiRanking)
Why does the same university rank very differently on QS, THE, and ARWU?
+
Because the three systems weight almost entirely different inputs. A university with strong employer/academic reputation but modest Nobel-laureate history will rank well on QS and comparatively lower on ARWU, which has no reputation component at all. A university with strong Nature/Science output but a smaller international student body will do relatively better on ARWU than on QS.
Which ranking is the most "objective"?
+
ARWU is the only one of the three built entirely from third-party, verifiable data (citation counts, publication indexing, Nobel/Fields records) with no survey component -- but "objective" is not the same as "complete": it captures research prestige and output only, and says nothing about teaching quality, student experience, or industry engagement, all of which QS and THE partly measure through surveys and other indicators.
Do QS, THE, and ARWU update their methodology every year?
+
Yes. All three periodically revise their indicator weights and, less often, add or retire indicators (QS added a Sustainability indicator in recent editions; THE has an unweighted study-abroad metric pending future implementation). Always check the current-year methodology page directly rather than relying on a prior year's weights.
Is a small reputation-survey response pool a real limitation for QS and THE?
+
It is a commonly raised critique: both QS and THE reputation surveys draw on a finite pool of academic and employer respondents, who tend to over-represent institutions they already know well, which can compound existing prestige rather than measure it independently. ARWU avoids this specific critique by using no survey data, at the cost of not measuring reputation, teaching, or student experience at all.
