Current approaches to gifted identification suggest collecting multiple sources of evidence. Some gifted identification guidelines allow for the interchangeable use of "performance" and "nonperformance" identification methods. This multiple criteria approach lacks a strong overlap between the assessment tools; however, interchangeable use of the instruments (replacing one for another) entails high regularity. This meta-analytic review investigated the consistency of using performance and nonperformance identification methods by examining the influence of three moderators in two different study analyses. Study 1 focused on correlational and comparison studies by using Pearson r as the index of effect size within a three-level multilevel design. Study 2 was conducted with three diagnostic proportional metrics: efficiency, effectiveness/sensitivity, and specificity. Results from Study 1 indicated the overall correlation between the performance and nonperformance gifted identification methods was medium (r = 0.30). Teacher ratings yielded significantly higher consistency with performance measures than teacher or parent nomination and self-ratings. Study 2 showed that nonperformance methods are relatively strong in terms of specificity (70%) and effectiveness/sensitivity (59%) but not very efficient (39%). Analyses of four diagnostic quadrants indicated that performance and nonperformance gifted identification methods, when used alone, tend to identify different students who would not be identified otherwise despite some amount of convergence between the two. Our findings indicated that nonperformance and performance gifted identification methods cannot replace each other. They should be used concurrently rather than be used alone or consecutively.