Adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) has proven to be a valid, reliable, and feasible method for assessing student performance in open-ended design scenarios. In addition to the use of ACJ for purely assessment and evaluation, research has demonstrated an opportunity to identify the design values of judges involved with the ACJ process. The potential for ACJ, as a tool for understanding cultural design values, and potentially facilitating international collaboration, is intriguing. Therefore, this study established three panels of judges, from countries around the world, to assess one body of student work using the ACJ method. The similarities, differences, and findings from these assessment results were analyzed, revealing distinct design values, preferences, and differences for each group of judges from the different locations.