## 7 Comparison with Other Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques
### Comparative Results
For clear understanding, these rankings are summarized in Table 7. It is obvious from the table that out of 15 turbine types, the trends for 11 turbine types were the same when Turaif and Wejh were compared using the TOPSIS method and all four methods combined. This shows the robustness of the TOPSIS method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Turbine**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TOPSIS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WSM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FL**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Score**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Score (Scaled)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-11}  & \(R_{i}\) & **Score** & **W(t)** & **Score** & \(\mu_{t}\) & **Score** & **Dev(t)** & **Score** & **Total Score (Scaled)** \\ \hline Acciona & 0.656 & 13 & 0.35 & 2 & 0.29 & 2 & 5,717,531.6 & 1 & 18 & 2 \\ Alstom & 0.681 & 14 & 0.53 & 12 & 0.50 & 11 & 2,919,222.4 & 9 & 46 & 15 \\ DeWind & 0.64 & 11 & 0.30 & 1 & 0.25 & 1 & 4,661,493.7 & 3 & 16 & 1 \\ Dongfang & 0.566 & 1 & 0.62 & 15 & 0.65 & 15 & 2,020,562.4 & 11 & 42 & 12 \\ Doosan & 0.632 & 9 & 0.40 & 6 & 0.41 & 6 & 3,716,649.9 & 7 & 28 & 6 \\ EnceronE2 & 0.63 & 7 & 0.51 & 11 & 0.46 & 9 & 4,326,071.8 & 5 & 32 & 8 \\ EnceronE4 & 0.717 & 15 & 0.40 & 7 & 0.40 & 4 & 4,336,680.2 & 4 & 30 & 7 \\ Gamesa & 0.649 & 12 & 0.44 & 8 & 0.44 & 8 & 3,379,247.7 & 8 & 36 & 10 \\ Hanjin & 0.632 & 8 & 0.40 & 5 & 0.41 & 5 & 3757429.0 & 6 & 24 & 4 \\ Leitwind & 0.637 & 10 & 0.39 & 4 & 0.36 & 3 & 5,583,023.8 & 2 & 19 & 3 \\ Nordex & 0.606 & 4 & 0.56 & 13 & 0.59 & 13 & 25.2 & 15 & 45 & 14 \\ Sinovel & 0.609 & 5 & 0.51 & 10 & 0.52 & 12 & 1,692,640.0 & 13 & 40 & 11 \\ Vestas112 & 0.63 & 6 & 0.38 & 3 & 0.43 & 7 & 2,481,516.8 & 10 & 26 & 5 \\ Vestas110 & 0.606 & 3 & 0.50 & 9 & 0.49 & 10 & 1,869,693.2 & 12 & 34 & 9 \\ Windtec & 0.581 & 2 & 0.60 & 14 & 0.62 & 14 & 225,818.8 & 14 & 44 & 13 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The scores in terms of different methods for Turaif. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Turbine**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TOPSIS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WSM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FL**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**GP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Score (Scaled)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-11}  & \(R_{i}\) & **Score** & **W(t)** & **Score** & \(\mu_{t}\) & **Score** & **Dev(t)** & **Score** & **Total Score (Scaled)** \\ \hline Acciona & 0.429 & 1 & 0.40 & 2 & 0.26 & 1 & 8,994,208.4 & 1 & 5 & 1 \\ Alstom & 0.591 & 14 & 0.52 & 8 & 0.51 & 10 & 3,904,605.7 & 9 & 41 & 11 \\ DeWind & 0.564 & 11 & 0.32 & 1 & 0.28 & 2 & 6,187,714.8 & 3 & 17 & 2 \\ Dongfang & 0.56 & 7 & 0.63 & 13 & 0.68 & 15 & 2,697,263.2 & 11 & 46 & 14 \\ Doosan & 0.559 & 5 & 0.42 & 4 & 0.45 & 6 & 4,910,796.4 & 7 & 22 & 5 \\ EnceronE2 & 0.554 & 3 & 0.52 & 9 & 0.50 & 9 & 5,950,923.9 & 4 & 25 & 6 \\ EnceronE4 & 0.606 & 15 & 0.42 & 3 & 0.43 & 4 & 5,920,422.3 & 5 & 27 & 7 \\ Gamesa & 0.569 & 13 & 0.49 & 7 & 0.47 & 8 & 4,688,631.6 & 8 & 36 & 9 \\ Hanjin & 0.555 & 4 & 0.48 & 6 & 0.44 & 5 & 5,316,740.7 & 6 & 21 & 4 \\ Leitwind & 0.564 & 10 & 0.47 & 5 & 0.41 & 3 & 7,887,874.5 & 2 & 20 & 3 \\ Nordex & 0.544 & 2 & 0.63 & 14 & 0.58 & 13 & 112,063.6 & 14 & 43 & 12 \\ Sinovel & 0.561 & 8 & 0.60 & 12 & 0.54 & 12 & 2,194,080.7 & 13 & 45 & 13 \\ Vestas112 & 0.562 & 9 & 0.53 & 10 & 0.46 & 7 & 3,556,428.4 & 10 & 36 & 8 \\ Vestas110 & 0.56 & 6 & 0.58 & 11 & 0.51 & 11 & 2,538,143.2 & 12 & 40 & 10 \\ Windtec & 0.569 & 12 & 0.74 & 15 & 0.65 & 14 & 89.7 & 15 & 56 & 15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The scores in terms of different methods for Turaif. Figure 8: Comparison of scores for different turbines for Turaif and Wejh using all methods combined. Figure 7: Comparison of scores for different turbines for Turaif and Wejh using TOPSIS.