The purpose of this study is to explore the reliability of a potentially more practical approach to direct writing assessment in the context of ESL writing. Traditional rubric rating (RR) is a common yet resource-intensive evaluation practice when performed reliably. This study compared the traditional rubric model of ESL writing assessment and many-facet Rasch modeling (MFRM) to comparative judgment (CJ), the new approach, which shows promising results in terms of reliability. We employed two groups of raters--novice and experienced--and used essays that had been previously double-rated, analyzed with MFRM, and selected with fit statistics. We compared the results of the novice and experienced groups against the initial ratings using raw scores, MFRM, and a modern form of CJ--randomly distributed comparative judgment (RDCJ). Results showed that the CJ approach, though not appropriate for all contexts, can be as reliable as RR while showing promise as a more practical approach. Additionally, CJ is easily transferable to novel assessment tasks while still providing context-specific scores. Results from this study will not only inform future studies but can help guide ESL programs in selecting a rating model best suited to their specific needs.