MBTI vs. Big Five: Which One Is Better?
Personality psychology has two big, popular models, but they don’t enjoy the same scientific backing. Of the two, the Big Five is the one with more evidence behind it.
This article compares the evidence. If what you want to know is which test to take first, how many questions each one has and what kind of result you get, we cover that in Big Five vs. 16 Personalities.
In favor of the MBTI
- It’s intuitive and easy to grasp: 16 types with memorable labels (INTJ, ESFP, and so on).
- Widely used in workplaces, coaching, and team-building activities.
- Helps kick off conversations about personal preferences without sounding clinical.
Against the MBTI
- Low test-retest reliability: many people get a different type if they retake the test weeks later (McCarley & Carskadon, 1983).
- It splits continuous traits into binary categories (introverted/extraverted), when in reality people spread out across a spectrum (McCrae & Costa, 1989).
- It lacks solid predictive validity backed by the scientific community (Pittenger, 1993).
In favor of the Big Five
- It’s the model with the strongest empirical backing in academic psychology.
- It measures five continuous dimensions (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism), which better reflects how personality actually works.
- It has solid predictive power for behavior, job performance, and wellbeing (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Against the Big Five
- It’s less catchy and memorable for the general public.
- It doesn’t offer clear-cut “types,” which makes it less appealing for group activities or marketing.
- Its numeric results can feel less intuitive to interpret without context.
What the data say when the two are compared
They partly measure the same thing
The most cited comparison is the one by Robert McCrae and Paul Costa (1989). They gave the MBTI and the NEO inventory to 468 adults aged 19 to 93, using both self-reports and ratings from people who knew them well, and found that four MBTI scales line up with four of the Big Five:
| MBTI scale | Related Big Five domain |
|---|---|
| Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) | Extraversion |
| Sensing-Intuition (S-N) | Openness to experience |
| Thinking-Feeling (T-F) | Agreeableness |
| Judging-Perceiving (J-P) | Conscientiousness |
Adrian Furnham, Joanna Moutafi and John Crump replicated that pattern in 2003 with 900 British adults. Two things follow. First, the MBTI doesn’t measure something foreign to personality science: under a different label, it measures four well-known traits. Second, it’s missing one. Neuroticism, or emotional reactivity, is one of the domains that best predicts wellbeing and health, and it has no scale of its own in the MBTI.
People don’t split into two groups per letter
If the types were real categories, plotting the scores on each scale should show two hills, one per pole, with a valley in between. That’s not what shows up. McCrae and Costa concluded that the MBTI measures four relatively independent dimensions, not dichotomous types. And Robert Arnau and his team (2003) applied taxometric analyses, designed precisely to detect hidden categories, to three Jungian questionnaires, the MBTI among them, and found no real category behind the preferences: they behaved like continua.
That has a practical consequence. Most people score near the middle of each scale, which is exactly where the cut between two letters is most arbitrary.
The type changes when you retake the test
That cut explains the stability problem. Someone who sits right on the line between E and I can land on one side one week and on the other the next, even though their personality hasn’t changed at all. In David Pittenger’s reviews (1993, 2005), a large share of people, around half in several studies, got at least one different letter when they retook the test a few weeks later.
The Big Five has no such jump, because there’s no cut: a small shift in a score stays just that, a small shift. And over the long run the traits show considerable stability, which increases with age (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
A note on online tests
Much of what people search for as “MBTI” online is actually the 16personalities.com test, which isn’t the official MBTI: it uses the same four letters, but it scores continuous traits similar to the Big Five and adds a fifth scale (the -A or -T suffix) that sits close to neuroticism. The criticisms above refer to the MBTI and its type logic; the differences between the two tests are explained in Big Five vs. 16 Personalities.
Why do both matter?
The two models serve different, complementary purposes.
The MBTI stands out for its communicative value: it offers a shared, accessible language for talking about individual differences, which is genuinely useful for early self-knowledge or team bonding.
The Big Five, on the other hand, stands out for its scientific and predictive value: by measuring traits on a continuous spectrum, it allows for more precise comparisons between people, and it’s used in serious research on mental health, job performance, and relationships.
The underlying difference is this: the MBTI types haven’t been shown to be real categories, while the Big Five’s five dimensions emerge consistently when personality traits are analyzed statistically across different cultures.
That’s why the scientific community doesn’t treat them as equivalent: one is a popular tool for general audiences, the other is an empirically validated model (though not free of its own criticism).
If you’re after scientific rigor, the Big Five is the sturdier choice. If you want an accessible tool for personal reflection or group activities, the MBTI can be useful, as long as you know its scientific validity is limited.
If you’re going with the model that has stronger scientific backing, you can take our Big Five test; if you’d rather start with something more memorable, we also have the 16 Personalities test.
Sources
- McCarley, N. G. and Carskadon, T. G. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of scales and subscales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and of criteria for clinical interpretive hypotheses involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6, 24-36.
- McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40.
- Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467-488.
- Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-221.
- Furnham, A., Moutafi, J. and Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 577-584.
- Arnau, R. C., Green, B. A., Rosen, D. H., Gleaves, D. H. and Melancon, J. G. (2003). Are Jungian preferences really categorical? An empirical investigation using taxometric analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(2), 233-251.
- Roberts, B. W. and DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3-25.
- Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Want to know more about yourself?
Discover your result with one of our related tests.
Frequently asked questions
Which model has stronger scientific backing, the MBTI or the Big Five?
The Big Five. Its five dimensions emerge consistently in factor-analytic studies across many countries, while statistical analyses of MBTI scores (for example, Arnau and colleagues in 2003) have not found 16 real, separate categories, only continuous dimensions.
Why is the MBTI still so popular?
It's intuitive, memorable, and widely used in team-building and coaching. Its weak spot is the stability of the type: when people retake the test a few weeks later, a sizable share of them change at least one letter.
When should you use each one?
The MBTI is useful for personal reflection or group activities; the Big Five is the sturdier choice when you want scientific rigor or predictive power.
Do the MBTI and the Big Five measure completely different things?
Less than you might think. McCrae and Costa (1989) and Furnham and colleagues (2003) found that the four MBTI scales line up with four of the Big Five: extraversion-introversion with extraversion, sensing-intuition with openness, thinking-feeling with agreeableness, and judging-perceiving with conscientiousness. What the MBTI leaves out is neuroticism.
