There is an increasing body of research which examines the reliability and validity of different modes of network measurement with most studies focusing on the classical paper or digital network questionnaires. Visual methods of data collection, in which interviewees draw their ego-centered network in a pictorial representation, still live a kind of shadowy existence in the field of network research, with little known about data quality of these approaches. In this paper, the classic approach of questionnaire data collection will be compared to the digital-visual method (VennMaker) in a parallel study design. Similar name generator and interpreter questions were used to collect network data from 264 young adults. Two participants from both studies participated in follow-up qualitative interviews to understand the advantages and disadvantages of data collection modes. Network measures of size, composition and density with additional information on the subjective importance of relations within the network were collected. Results indicate relevant differences between both network methods. These emerge due to the differential effect of the name generator in the visual approach, the specific display of the study material, and the particular limitations of space and effort each method entails. In-depth interviews shed light on subjective strategies (such as gestalt and distancing-and-selecting strategies) in order to cope with the distinct methodical tasks.