A Comprehensive Guide to the COPRAS method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making


  • Hamed Taherdoost

    Hamta Business Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Q Minded | Quark Minded Technology Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Department of Arts, Communications and Social Sciences, University Canada West, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  • Atefeh Mohebi

    Department of Arts, Communications and Social Sciences, University Canada West, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada




MCDM has been utilized as a proficient decision-making technique for numerous decades. Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) method, a prominent technique in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) which offers a systematic and effective framework for evaluating alternatives and making informed choices. The versatility of COPRAS is demonstrated via case studies across various domains, such as engineering, business, and environmental management, showcasing its adaptability and robustness in providing solutions to diverse decision-making scenarios. There is a lack of a comprehensive guide and a reviewing of application, strengths, and limitation for this method in the literature. Therefore, this study aims to offer an in-depth understanding of the COPRAS approach, including its applications, advantages, and disadvantages. Additionally, it provides detailed guidance on how to utilize the COPRAS methodology for decision-making and real-life problems.


Multi-Criteria Decision Making; COPRAS; Decision-making; Complex Proportional Assessment; Multi-criteria decision-making


[1] Hwang, C.-L. and K. Yoon, Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Vol. 186. 2012: Springer Science & Business Media.

[2] Triantaphyllou, E. and E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria decision making methods. 2000: Springer.

[3] Zavadskas, E.K. and A. Kaklauskas, The new method of multicriteria evaluation of projects. 1996.

[4] Zavadskas, E.K., A. Kaklauskas, and T. Vilutiene, Multicriteria evaluation of apartment blocks maintenance contractors: Lithuanian case study. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 2009. 13(4): p. 319-338.

[5] Podvezko, V., The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 2011. 22(2): p. 134-146.

[6] Kaklauskas, A., et al., Model for a complex analysis of intelligent built environment. Automation in construction, 2010. 19(3): p. 326-340.

[7] Zavadskas, E.K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė, State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and economic development of economy, 2014. 20(1): p. 165-179.

[8] Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., et al., Multiple criteria group decision-making for supplier selection based on COPRAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2014. 75(5): p. 1115-1130.

[9] Vahdani, B., et al., Robot selection by a multiple criteria complex proportional assessment method under an interval-valued fuzzy environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2014. 73(5): p. 687-697.

[10] Turanoglu Bekar, E., M. Cakmakci, and C. Kahraman, Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2016. 17(5): p. 663-684.

[11] Mishra, A.R., P. Rani, and K.R. Pardasani, Multiple-criteria decision-making for service quality selection based on Shapley COPRAS method under hesitant fuzzy sets. Granular Computing, 2019. 4(3): p. 435-449.

[12] Kumari, R. and A.R. Mishra, Multi-criteria COPRAS Method Based on Parametric Measures for Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Application of Green Supplier Selection. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, 2020. 44(4): p. 1645-1662.

[13] Wang, L.E., H.C. Liu, and M.Y. Quan, Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2016. 102: p. 175-185.

[14] Balali, A., et al., Ranking effective risks on human resources threats in natural gas supply projects using ANP-COPRAS method: Case study of Shiraz. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021. 208.

[15] Gokasar, I., et al., Alternative prioritization of freeway incident management using autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic using a type-2 neutrosophic number based decision support system. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023. 123.

[16] Alzahrani, F.A., et al., Optimal Site Selection for Women University Using Neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach. Buildings, 2023. 13(1).

[17] Mishra, A.R., et al., Fermatean fuzzy copula aggregation operators and similarity measures-based complex proportional assessment approach for renewable energy source selection. Complex and Intelligent Systems, 2022. 8(6): p. 5223-5248.

[18] Mohanrasu, S.S., K. Janani, and R. Rakkiyappan, A COPRAS-based Approach to Multi-Label Feature Selection for Text Classification. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2023.

[19] Can, G.F. and E. Kılıç Delice, A task-based fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for shopping mall selection considering universal design criteria. Soft Computing, 2018. 22(22): p. 7377-7397.

[20] Hasheminezhad, A., F. Hadadi, and H. Shirmohammadi, Investigation and prioritization of risk factors in the collision of two passenger trains based on fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy DEMATEL methods. Soft Computing, 2021. 25(6): p. 4677-4697.

[21] Aydoğdu, E., et al., A Novel Entropy Measure with its Application to the COPRAS Method in Complex Spherical Fuzzy Environment. Informatica (Netherlands), 2023. 34(4): p. 679-711.

[22] Erdebilli, B., et al., An Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy AHP and COPRAS Hybrid Methods for the Supplier Selection Problem. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 2023. 16(1).

[23] Alipour, M., et al., A new Pythagorean fuzzy-based decision-making method through entropy measure for fuel cell and hydrogen components supplier selection. Energy, 2021. 234.

[24] Simsek, E., et al., Use of multi-criteria decision models for optimization of selecting the most appropriate best available techniques in cleaner production applications: A case study in a textile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. 335.

[25] Dinçer, H., et al., Analysis of renewable-friendly smart grid technologies for the distributed energy investment projects using a hybrid picture fuzzy rough decision-making approach. Energy Reports, 2022. 8: p. 11466-11477.

[26] Effatpanah, S.K., et al., Comparative Analysis of Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022. 14(3).

[27] Atmaca, E., E. Aktaş, and H.N. Öztürk, Evaluated Post-Disaster and Emergency Assembly Areas Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Case Study of Turkey. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2023. 15(10).

[28] Almulhim, T. and I. Barahona, An extended picture fuzzy multicriteria group decision analysis with different weights: A case study of COVID-19 vaccine allocation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2023. 85.

[29] Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., et al., A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2017. 63: p. 45-60.

[30] Valipour, A., H. Sarvari, and J. Tamošaitiene, Risk assessment in ppp projects by applying different mcdm methods and comparative results analysis. Administrative Sciences, 2018. 8(4).

[31] Gangadhari, R.K., et al., Modelling the relationships between the barriers to implementing machine learning for accident analysis: the Indian petroleum industry. Benchmarking, 2023. 30(9): p. 3357-3381.

[32] Xiang, Z., M.H. Naseem, and J. Yang, Selection of Coal Transportation Company Based on Fuzzy SWARA-COPRAS Approach. Logistics, 2022. 6(1).

[33] Ighravwe, D.E., et al., A MCDM-based framework for the selection of renewable energy system simulation tool for teaching and learning at university level. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2022. 24(11): p. 13035-13056.

[34] Khan, N.Z., et al., Selection of E-learning websites using a novel Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) MCDM method. Journal of Computers in Education, 2019. 6(2): p. 241-256.

[35] Klumbytė, E., et al., An MCDM model for sustainable decision-making in municipal residential buildings facilities management. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2021. 13(5): p. 1-16.

[36] Bening, S.A., et al., E-Commerce Technologies Adoption Strategy Selection in Indonesian SMEs Using the Decision-Makers, Technological, Organizational and Environmental (DTOE) Framework. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2023. 15(12).

[37] Krishankumar, R., et al., A New Approach to the Viable Ranking of Zero-Carbon Construction Materials with Generalized Fuzzy Information. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2022. 14(13).

[38] Alwali Daini Udda, S., H. Nelly Astuti, and F. Fadlina, Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Sales Marketing Terbaik di PT. Alfa Scorph Menggunakan Metode COPRAS. 2020. 2(1): p. 62-68.

[39] Ekaterina, P.Z., COPRAS-Based Decision-Making Strategy for Optimal Cluster Head Selection in WSNs. 2023: p. 537-549.

[40] Kildienė, S., A. Kaklauskas, and E.K. Zavadskas, COPRAS based comparative analysis of the European country management capabilities within the construction sector in the time of crisis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2011. 12(2): p. 417-434.

[41] Madić, M., et al. Application of COPRAS method for supplier selection. in The Fifth International Conference Transport and Logistics-TIL 2014, Proceedings. 2014.

[42] Makhesana, M.A., Application of improved complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) method for rapid prototyping system selection. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2015. 21(6): p. 671-674.

[43] Mousavi-Nasab, S.H. and A. Sotoudeh-Anvari, A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 2017. 121: p. 237-253.

[44] Popovic, G., D. Stanujkic, and S. Stojanovic, Investment project selection by applying COPRAS method and imprecise data. Serbian Journal of Management, 2012. 7(2): p. 257-269.

[45] Romualdas, B., Z. Edmundas Kazimieras, and K. Artūras, Application of neutrosophic set to multicriteria decision making by copras. viXra, 2019.

[46] Swethaa, S., et al., An integrated intuitionistic dense fuzzy Entropy-COPRAS-WASPAS approach for manufacturing robot selection. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2023. 15(3): p. 168781322311602-168781322311602.

[47] Chaurasiya, R. and D. Jain, Pythagorean fuzzy entropy measure-based complex proportional assessment technique for solving multi-criteria healthcare waste treatment problem. Granular Computing, 2022. 7(4): p. 917-930.

[48] Goswami, S.S. and D.K. Behera, Developing Fuzzy-AHP-Integrated Hybrid MCDM System of COPRAS-ARAS for Solving an Industrial Robot Selection Problem. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), 2023. 15(1): p. 1-38.

[49] Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., et al., A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture. Sustainability, 2018. 10(5): p. 1626.

[50] Mardani, A., et al., Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy-SWARA-COPRAS Method for Multi-Criteria Sustainable Biomass Crop Type Selection. Sustainability, 2023. 15(10): p. 7765.

[51] Kaklauskas, A., et al., Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: A Lithuanian case. Energy and buildings, 2006. 38(5): p. 454-462.


How to Cite

Taherdoost, H., & Mohebi, A. (2024). A Comprehensive Guide to the COPRAS method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 7(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.30564/jmser.v7i2.6280