When a personalized set of head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) is not available, a common solution is identifying a perceptually appropriate substitute from a database. There are various approaches to this selection process whether based on localization cues, subjective evaluations, or anthropomorphic similarities. This study investigates whether HRTF rankings that stem from different selection methods yield comparable results. A perceptual study was carried out using a basic source localization method and a subjective quality judgment method for a common set of eight HRTFs. HRTF rankings were determined according to different metrics from each method for each subject and the respective results were compared. Results indicate a significant and positive mean correlation between certain metrics. The best HRTFs selected according to one method had significant above-average rating scores according to metrics in the second method.