Comparison of Methodologies
Learn how our methodology compares to the main university ranking systems worldwide and regionally.
4
Compared Methodologies
Comparative Summary
Detailed analysis of the main differences and similarities between methodologies
Grana Ranking Global
Regional Focus
QS World Rankings
QS World Rankings
THE Rankings
Research Focus
ARWU Shanghai
Objective Metrics
Detailed Comparison of Criteria
Point-by-point analysis of the criteria used by each methodology
| Criterio | Grana Ranking Global | QS World | THE | ARWU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong emphasis on academic reputation | 15% Faculty | 40% Survey | 18% Reputation | - |
| Research | 15% Results | 20% Citations | 30% Research | 60% Publications |
| Teaching Quality | 15% Faculty | 20% Student/Professor Ratio | 30% Teaching | 20% Staff with PhD |
| Students | 10% Admission and Retention | 5% International Students | 7.5% International Perspective | - |
| Social Impact | 15% Social Training | - | - | - |
| Infrastructure | 10% Equipment | - | 2.5% Resources | - |
| Internationalization | 5% Recognition | 10% Professors/Students | 7.5% Perspective | - |
| Employability | 5% Implicit | 5% Employer Reputation | - | - |
fortalezas_de Grana Ranking Global
Regional Context
Unique methodology specifically designed for the educational and socioeconomic context of Latin America, considering regional particularities and challenges.
Social Impact
The only ranking that specifically evaluates the social impact of university education, measuring the real contribution of universities to social development.
Comprehensive Balance
Balanced methodology that does not excessively favor research over teaching, evaluating all university functions comprehensively.
Total Transparency
Completely open and documented methodology, with public access to all criteria, weightings, and evaluation processes.
Adaptability
Flexible system that adapts to different types of universities (public, private, specialized) without bias toward a specific model.
Key Differences
vs. Metodologia.rankings_globales
While QS and THE prioritize international reputation and research metrics, Grana Ranking Global balances these aspects with social impact and regional relevance.
vs. ARWU Shanghai
ARWU focuses almost exclusively on research and publications. Our approach includes teaching quality, infrastructure, and comprehensive training.
vs. Students
We evaluate not only the admission of international students but also equity in access, retention, and graduation efficiency for all students.
Infrastructure and Resources
The only ranking that specifically evaluates infrastructure, equipment, and technological resources as a determining factor of educational quality.
Extension and Outreach
We evaluate the impact of extension and outreach activities with society, an aspect not considered by other major rankings.
Weight Distribution by Methodology
Visualization of how each ranking distributes importance among different criteria
Grana Ranking Global
Balanced approach with emphasis on social impact
QS World
Strong emphasis on academic reputation
The Rankings
Balance between teaching and research
ARWU
Almost exclusive focus on research
Why Grana Ranking Global?
Our methodology represents an evolution in university evaluation, specifically designed to reflect the needs and realities of Latin America.
Regional Relevance
Criteria adapted to the Latin American context.
Comprehensive Evaluation
Balance between all university functions.
Methodological Innovation
Unique criteria such as social impact and outreach