###### Abstract
Since the most simplified methods require a reduced number of parameters, i.e., they are applicable even in the presence of few information, and the most detailed methods need more information, they have been divided into two macrocategories based on the final judgment of seismic vulnerability: 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' methods. The methods are compared to each other, mainly according to type and number of input data, type of output, limitations of use for different structural typologies, and complexity of use. Such a comparison makes possible to quickly identify the most suitable methods for assessing the vulnerability of a given class of buildings, based on the available data, the computational effort, and the type of final judgment. With regard to the latter aspect, actually the different methods do not always lead to results expressed in a homogeneous way. Some of them lead, indeed, to the definition of a class of vulnerability, other quantitative indicators in some way represents, albeit in a simplified way, a capacity-to-demand ratio. When the method leads to the identification of a class of vulnerability (from low to high), in the following it will be referred to as a 'linguistic' judgment, i.e., expressed in verbal rather than quantitative terms. It is worth noting that in no case, however, the outcome of an expeditious vulnerability assessment can assume the same meaning as a detailed structural and non-structural analysis it is possible to do (via static or time-history non-linear analysis) for a single building. In any case, the simplified procedures for vulnerability assessment are generally used for a first screening, to evaluate the most critical situations, and to identify the intervention priorities, so as to allocate available resources in a rational way. From this point of view, beyond the differences between the various methods, what matters is the internal consistency of the outputs of each single method. However, the following paragraphs explain how each method expresses the degree of vulnerability of the buildings, which represents also the basis for a further comparison between the different procedures. In the second part of the paper, the selected methods were applied to a sample of school buildings located in the province of Naples (Italy). The area extends for about a thousand square meters and is, therefore, characterized by an almost uniform seismic hazard. Buildings are different mainly for structural typology, geometry, and age of construction. Depending on the information necessary for the application of each method, the reference sample is customized according to the level of knowledge available for each building. This means that the most simplified methods were applied to a largersample (about 1000 buildings), while the more detailed methods could be applicable to a reduced number of buildings (only 14 masonry buildings). The fundamental assumption of this study is that the available data about the examined school buildings and usable in the analyses come from a 'closed' database, which is part of a digital national platform aimed to draw up a catalogue of the school buildings and where very diversified information (functional, logistic, structural, etc.) are collected. Thus, the structural data necessary for applying vulnerability methods were not obtained by on-site surveys directly carried out by the authors or by technicians. Such a condition is in the frame of 'large scale' vulnerability assessment philosophy, since preliminary analyses can be often carried out only based on few data made available by administrative offices and not coming by technical analyses or inquires. This circumstance leads to several methods available in the literature being not applicable to the examined database due to lacking detailed information.