ISSUE:  How should patient preferences be elicited for use in comparative treatment evaluation? OVERVIEW:  Evaluating treatments based on clinical profiles and convenience characteristics brings treatment choice closer to the patient than generic evaluation frameworks such as quality-adjusted life year. When no dominant treatment option exists, such valuation exercises must establish trade-offs between profiles of competing treatments. Various health authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare have highlighted the importance of eliciting the trade-offs directly from patients. Multiple techniques such as discrete choice experiments and swing weighting are applicable for eliciting patient trade-off preferences. Currently, there is no guidance on which elicitation method is most appropriate in different circumstances. This panel asks which elicit method is most appropriate, and when, taking into account of both the theoretical and practical differences between the methods. Panelists will draw on their experience from ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design task force (Mühlbacher), European Medicines Agency preference-based benefit-risk pilot (Postmus) and methodological development (Tervonen) to defend their points of view.