CliftonStrengths vs Big Five, 16PF, HEXACO and Enneagram
Compare strengths development, personality traits, and narrative reflection. Separate published instruments from local exercises before choosing an assessment.
Editorial responsibility: Personal Tests repository maintainers.
Editorially reviewed: . AI-assisted educational content, not independently reviewed by a psychometric or clinical professional. Public corrections are not yet available.
Review scope, sources, and corrections
Reviewed local provenance claims and instrument distinctions; checked the Enneagram review abstract and replaced the raw metadata citation with a reader page. Other references were not all independently rechecked.
AI-assisted editorial review, not independent psychometric or clinical review. Source checks are limited to those described for this article; no professional reviewer credentials are claimed.
Review when cited evidence, provider information, questionnaire wording, scoring, or availability changes. Dates are updated only after a substantive review.
Read the site methodology and score limitations.
Report a content correction on GitHub. Include the article title, the claim, and a supporting source. The repository is currently private. Filing an issue requires a GitHub account with repository access; a public correction channel is not yet available. Treat submissions as public: do not post personal data, answers, result links, or private records.
Choose a question before choosing a test
"What work interests me?" and "How could I change a habit at work?" are different questions. A report about talent themes, broad traits, or narrative types will not answer them in the same way.
CliftonStrengths is a specific Gallup product. Big Five and HEXACO are personality models with named instruments built around them. Enneagram refers to a typology and associated theories, not one standardized questionnaire. A model's familiar name does not establish the quality of every website using it.
Personal Tests' local CliftonStrengths imitation has been withdrawn. It was not established as Gallup's instrument, and its authorization and validation were not established. The local 16PF and Enneagram questionnaires are also withdrawn. This comparison links to official providers and educational sources, not local versions of those products.
What each approach is about
| Approach | Main subject | Useful question to bring | Inference to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gallup CliftonStrengths | Reported talent themes for development | What habit could I practice more deliberately? | My theme order proves ability or job fit |
| Big Five | Broad personality dimensions | How does my behavior vary across situations? | Any Big Five quiz inherits a published instrument's evidence |
| Published 16PF | A particular personality questionnaire | Which edition, report, and interpretation does a provider offer? | The name guarantees suitability for every professional use |
| HEXACO | Six personality domains | How does this model organize trait differences? | Honesty-Humility is a moral certificate |
| Enneagram | Narrative accounts of types and motivations | Does this story help me examine a recurring reaction? | It reveals a true type or predicts compatibility |
These are distinctions in subject matter, not a ranking of accuracy.
CliftonStrengths: start with Gallup's product
Gallup describes a paired-statement assessment organized around 34 themes. That format differs from the site's withdrawn single-statement exercise.
If you want the official assessment, check Gallup's current report options and conditions. Its science page presents evidence about its own instrument. It does not establish that knowing a theme order causes better performance, or that our suggested workshops have a measured effect.
Use a report to choose something observable: a different preparation routine, a clearer handoff, or a way to request feedback. Do not use a theme list as a hiring screen or leadership-potential ranking.
Big Five: a model is not a questionnaire
Big Five discussions commonly concern openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These are dimensions rather than mutually exclusive types. Labels and detail vary across instruments.
For an example of instrument-specific research, Soto and John's BFI-2 paper describes development of the Big Five Inventory-2. Its evidence concerns that instrument, not any questionnaire with five trait headings.
Personal Tests' Big Five forms are locally implemented, unvalidated reflection exercises. Their item sources, authorship, adaptation history, and permissions have not been fully verified. They are not the BFI-2 or established equivalents of a published inventory. Their 0-100 response scales are not population percentiles; the short and standard forms should not be assumed to have equivalent precision.
For self-reflection, write down a situation in which a description fits and one in which it does not. For a professional assessment need, ask a provider to identify the exact form, language, population, and intended interpretation.
16PF: identify the edition and provider
The published 16PF is distinct from a site using its name. Pearson's Fifth Edition product information is a starting point for provider inquiries.
The withdrawn local questionnaire did not establish equivalence to that instrument. Do not treat a previous local result as a professional 16PF report.
Before purchasing through a provider, ask what report you will receive, who will interpret it, what qualifications apply, and what evidence supports your proposed use. A detailed report is not automatically appropriate for diagnosis, selection, or promotion. This comparison does not recommend it for those decisions.
HEXACO: a different model, not an ethics test
The HEXACO authors' scale descriptions identify Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Consult that source for the model's meanings rather than treating HEXACO as simply Big Five with a moral score added.
A self-report result does not establish that a person is honest, manipulative, or safe to trust with responsibility. Do not choose HEXACO to certify character or screen candidates for ethics-sensitive roles.
If you need a published HEXACO instrument, consult the authors' inventory page about forms and use conditions. The site's HEXACO Model Reflection is a locally implemented, unvalidated exercise with unverified item provenance, not an equivalent of those forms. The local HEXACO short form is withdrawn.
Enneagram: allow the story to be wrong
Enneagram writing often uses nine types to discuss motivations. These are theoretical accounts, not established explanations for everything a person does.
Hook and colleagues' 2021 systematic review found mixed reliability and validity evidence, with little research supporting secondary ideas such as wings and intertype movement. The readable MEDLINE abstract on Medscape reports both supportive findings and limitations; it does not justify treating the framework as either conclusively validated or wholly disproven.
You can examine a recurring reaction without accepting a type. Ask what happened, what you wanted, and what else might explain your response. Reject an ill-fitting description without assuming that disagreement reveals denial. Type pairings should not be used to predict relationships or team compatibility.
If your question is about careers, consider interests separately
RIASEC organizes occupational interests into Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional areas. The O*NET Interest Profiler is an identified instrument with documentation and links to occupational information.
Personal Tests' RIASEC exercise is locally implemented and unvalidated, with unverified item provenance. It is not the O*NET Interest Profiler, does not inherit its evidence, and has no population norms. Interests are also different from demonstrated skills.
The local results do not generate a Holland Code or provide occupation matching. Their optional, generic exploration activities are prompts for further investigation, not occupation-specific recommendations.
Use an interest result to select activities to investigate. Compare training, working conditions, pay needs, and access constraints, then try a small relevant task or speak to someone doing the work.
A short decision process
- Write one question you hope a report will help with.
- Identify the exact instrument and provider, not just the model name.
- Read what evidence supports that interpretation and what the report cannot establish.
- Check price, accessibility, privacy, and who will receive the results.
- Choose one low-stakes follow-up action before buying another assessment.
The testing Standards make evidence for intended score interpretations and uses central to validity. A reliability coefficient, long questionnaire, or polished report cannot substitute for that evidence.
Combining several assessments does not turn them into a comprehensive diagnosis or confirm a career choice. Conflicting reports are a reason to revisit the questions and contexts, not average unrelated scores.
For a practical next step, read the CliftonStrengths report guide. If your main problem is an unclear role or missed handoff, the team workshop guide can be used without any questionnaire.
Sources and their limits
- Gallup: How CliftonStrengths Works and Science of CliftonStrengths. Provider descriptions and evidence; no support for the withdrawn local imitation.
- Soto and John, 2017: The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2). Identifies instrument-specific research; no local-equivalence claim or numerical validity estimate is drawn from it.
- Pearson: 16PF Fifth Edition. Provider reference; confirm current administration and eligibility directly.
- HEXACO authors: Scale descriptions and inventory information. Model and instrument references, not permission to reproduce materials or judge individual character.
- Hook et al., 2021: The Enneagram systematic review, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77, 865-883. Readable MEDLINE abstract. Abstract-level source check, not an independent reanalysis of its studies or a review of later research.
- O*NET: Interest Profiler. Official career-interest resource, distinct from local RIASEC.
- AERA, APA, and NCME: Testing Standards, 2014. General evaluation principles, not an endorsement of any entry in this comparison.