Taste is essential for proper nutritional intake and thus has a significant effect on quality of life, yet clinical assessments of gustatory function are often underutilized or poorly standardized. This study aimed to compare two contrasting methodologies for evaluating taste sensitivity: Bayesian adaptive taste thresholds versus taste strip identification scores. One hundred participants underwent two sessions of gustatory testing, with a series of up to 20 trials of spray-based dilutions of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter tastants (QUEST) and the 16-item tastant-impregnated paper strips test. The log-transformed QUEST scores showed similar test-retest reliability to the taste strips score, with the bitter tastant showing the greatest correlation. There was no significant correlation between QUEST thresholds and taste strips identification scores. The QUEST spray test was rated more favorably by the participants for comprehensibility and pleasantness but took 12.38 min (± 33 s) on average, compared to 4.19 min (± 25 s) for the taste strips test. Tastant misidentifications on the taste strips assessment revealed that sour was disproportionately perceived as bitter at low concentrations but as salt at higher concentrations. QUEST logarithmic taste thresholds and tastant misidentifications on the taste strips test may serve as independent clinical measures of hypogeusia progression alongside taste strips identification score.