No cardinal measurement: The utility analysis was based upon a highly unrealistic assumption that utility can be exactly measured the assumption of ordinal measurement of utility seems to be more realistic and valid.
No constancy of marginal utility of money: The indifference curve analysis is superior than the cardinal approach for assuming no constancy of ME of money, which is more valid.
No independence of utilities: The Marshallian utility analysis had also assume independence of the utilities of prices. The indifference curves theory doesn’t take even this faulty assumption.
Sound theoretical foundation: The indifference curves theory rests on more sound theoretical foundation by employing the principle of diminishing marginal rate of substitution.
Condition for consumer’s equilibrium: The indifference curve approach is still superior because it arrived at the same conclusion as the utility approach did without making those unrealistic and un valid assumptions as had been taken in the latter approach.
Cross effects: The indifference curve approach recognized that price effect was comprised of income and substitution effect. In this way, the indifference curves theory gave importance to the cross effects.
Welfare theory: The movement shift from lower to higher indifference curve signifies that the level of satisfaction or welfare has increased. Which is ignored by cardinal approach.
Explanation of Giffen’s paradox: The cardinal utility analysis was based upon many restrictive, unrealistic, unsound and unwanted assumptions. The difference curves theory, or the ordinal utility approach on the opposite, arrived at the same conclusions without resort to so many unrealistic assumptions.
Extensive applications: The ordinal utility approach is far better than the cardinal utility approach on the ground that the former has very extensive theoretical and practical applications.
