People can't rank their own priorities, but they can choose.
Ask someone what matters most and everything scores highly. Ask them to pick, one pair at a time, and the real order emerges. That's the whole idea behind KYP.
- A scientifically validated, time-tested method — not a form dressed up
- Four minutes, for a small, highly relevant set of choices over three categories.
- A genuine ranking the client couldn't have told you directly
- See how brokers use this →
How the comparisons work
You're shown two options, in isolation, and asked to pick the most relevant one, then another pair... until the stage is complete (about 90 seconds), and then a second and third category.
That's it. No sliders, no star ratings, no "rate this 1 to 10." Just: this one, or that one.
It sounds almost too simple to be useful. It isn't. Forced choice is a well-established method in psychometrics, going back to Louis Thurstone's 1927 paper A Law of Comparative Judgement. Thurstone was trying to solve a specific problem: people are bad at putting a number on how much they want something, but they're reliably good at saying which of two things they want more.
Why not just ask people to rate things?
Ask someone to rate five priorities from 1 to 10 and you'll get four 8s and a 9. Everything matters, so everything scores highly. That's not dishonesty — it's how people answer rating scales when there's no cost to saying yes to everything.
Force a choice between two of those same priorities, and the picture changes. One gets picked over the other. Repeat that across enough pairs and a genuine order emerges — not because people are being more honest, but because the question has changed. "How much do you want this?" invites inflation. "Which one, if you can only have one?" doesn't.
What this looks like for a mortgage applicant
An applicant says they want the lowest monthly payment, the least interest over the term, certainty that the payment won't move, and to complete quickly. Asked to rate each of those, most people will rate all four highly — they're not lying, they just haven't been forced to choose.
Put "lowest monthly payment" against "least interest over the term" as a straight pick, and you get an answer. Put "payment certainty" against "completing quickly," and you get another. Across a full set of comparisons, a genuine order of priority comes out the other end — one the applicant probably couldn't have told you directly, because nobody sits down and ranks their own priorities before someone asks them to.
The comparisons don't ask "what matters to you" — they ask the applicant to prove it, one pair at a time. By the time you sit down together, you already know whether this is someone who will trade rate for speed, or never would.
Where this comes from
Thurstone's original method is called the Law of Comparative Judgement, and it's the basis for most modern approaches to measuring preference where a direct rating would be unreliable — political science, market research, and psychometric testing all use variants of it. KYP applies the same underlying principle to a specific, narrower job: helping an adviser understand what a client actually cares about before the conversation starts, rather than during it.
Why this, and not just a form
The reason KYP uses comparisons instead of a form comes down to one line from Dale Carnegie: "the only way to influence people is to talk in terms of what the other person wants."
Most sales and advice processes get this backwards. They ask the client to fill in a form, then the adviser works out how to pitch based on what's on the page. The client does the describing; the professional does the interpreting — and interpretation is where things get lost.
The comparisons flip that. Instead of describing what they want, the client shows it, one choice at a time. By the end, the adviser isn't guessing at a pitch — they've got the client's actual priorities, in order, before the conversation even starts.
It's the same principle Carnegie was writing about. Just applied with a method that doesn't rely on the client being able to articulate what they want in the first place — because most people can't, not clearly, not on demand. They can choose. That's a lower bar, and a more honest one.
Frequently asked questions
What is pairwise comparison?
It's a method where someone chooses between two options at a time, repeated across many pairs, until a clear order of priority emerges. It's used instead of rating scales because forced choice reveals real preference more reliably than asking someone to rate items independently.
Why not just use a form or a rating scale?
Rating scales let people mark everything as important, which tells you little. A forced choice between two things doesn't allow that — one has to be picked over the other, and that's what produces a genuine ranking.
Is this a recognised method, or something KYP invented?
It's recognised. The underlying method is Louis Thurstone's 1927 Law of Comparative Judgement, still used today in market research, political science, and psychometric testing. KYP applies the same principle to profiling mortgage applicants.
How long does the comparison process take?
A few minutes, completed on the client's own device, with no forms to fill in beforehand.
Does the client see their own results?
Yes. The client gets a simple ranking of their own priorities at the same time the adviser receives the full report.
What does the adviser actually get?
A clear picture of what the client values most — control versus convenience, price versus certainty, speed versus thoroughness — before the first proper conversation happens.
Does this replace a valuation or a fact-find?
No. It sits alongside them. A valuation covers the property; a fact-find covers the numbers. This covers what's actually driving the client's decision, which neither of those is designed to capture.
Read why comparisons work — the research behind the method →