Objective: To compare the valuation of ovarian cancer health states as assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and the standard gamble (SG). Methods: Ovarian cancer patients and oncologists were enrolled in this study. Participants were asked to score six hypothetical treatment scenarios using the VAS and SG. Values were compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and t-test. Results: Fifty-one patients and 34 oncologists were enrolled to this study. Participants were asked to rank order health states in a one-time interview using the VAS, followed by assessment of the health states, in random order, using the SG. This resulted in 244 and 199 SG-VAS data pairs for analysis from patients and oncologists, respectively. The ICC among patients was 0.003 (95% CI: -0.122 to 0.129; F-test, p=0.479). A significant difference was observed between VAS and SG scores for patients receiving chemotherapy (mean difference, -0.114, p<0.0001), but not for patients under surveillance (mean difference 0.06, p=0.13). The SG produced higher valuation than the VAS among patients receiving chemotherapy, but the VAS produced higher values than the SG among patients under surveillance. For oncologists, the ICC was 0.323 (95% CI: 0.192 to 0.442; F test p<0.0001), with the SG 0.09 higher than VAS values (p<0.0001). Each patient group valued the health states in the mean range of 0.46-0.61 on the VAS; however, SG utilities ranged from 0.53-0.61 for patients receiving chemotherapy and from 0.30-0.37 for patients under surveillance. The range of mean values by oncologists was 0.27-0.66 and 0.30-0.70 for the VAS and SG, respectively. Conclusion: There appear to be different utility values obtained using the SG and VAS among patients undergoing treatment, patients under surveillance, and oncologists. This comparison suggests the importance of considering differences between these groups and method used when conducting utility valuation research in ovarian cancer.