Sorting procedures are frequently adopted as an alternative to dissimilarity ratings to measure the dissimilarity of large sets of stimuli in a comparatively short time. However, systematic empirical research on the consequences of this experiment-design choice is lacking. We carried out a behavioral experiment to assess the extent to which sorting procedures compare to dissimilarity ratings in terms of efficiency, reliability, and accuracy, and the extent to which data from different data-collection methods are redundant and are better fit by different distance models. Participants estimated the dissimilarity of either semantically charged environmental sounds or semantically neutral synthetic sounds. We considered free and hierarchical sorting and derived indications concerning the properties of constrained and truncated hierarchical sorting methods from hierarchical sorting data. Results show that the higher efficiency of sorting methods comes at a considerable cost in terms of data reliability and accuracy. This loss appears to be minimized with truncated hierarchical sorting methods that start from a relatively low number of groups of stimuli. Finally, variations in data-collection method differentially affect the fit of various distance models at the group-average and individual levels. On the basis of these results, we suggest adopting sorting as an alternative to dissimilarity-rating methods only when strictly necessary. We also suggest analyzing the raw behavioral dissimilarities, and avoiding modeling them with one single distance model. (Contains 1 footnote, 4 tables, and 8 figures.)