Purpose: This study aimed to compare the cut scores obtained by the Extended Angoff and Contrasting Groups methods for an achievement test consisting of constructed-response items. Research Methods: This study was based on survey research design. In the collection of data, the study group of the research consisted of eight mathematics teachers for the Extended Angoff method, 75 eighth grade students, and a mathematics teacher for the Contrasting Groups method. Data were collected through math achievement test consisting of constructed-response items, scoring rubrics, expert opinion form for Extended Angoff method and student classification form for Contrasting Groups method. Findings: Cut score was determined to be 13,38 by the Extended Angoff method and 12,50 by the Contrasting Groups method. It has been determined that the two standard-setting methods do not make significant difference between the master accepted student ratios. It has been found that there is a high level of harmony between the methods in terms of classifying the students as qualified and unqualified. Implications for Research and Practice: This study was restricted to test consisting of constructed-response items and two standard-setting methods. It is suggested that future research tests should include different types of items and compare different methods. In the COVID-19 pandemic process, judge panel discussions can be made online in the Extended Angoff method. Online meetings can allow the creation of a heterogeneous judge group. Therefore, both methods can be used in the COVID-19 process.