The process of selecting the right set of requirements for a product release is dependent on how well the organisation succeeds in prioritising the requirements candidates. This paper describes two consecutive controlled experiments comparing different requirements prioritisation techniques with the objective of understanding differences in time-consumption, ease of use and accuracy. The first experiment evaluates Pair-wise comparisons and a variation of the Planning game. As the Planning game turned out as superior, the second experiment was designed to compare the Planning game to Tool-supported pair-wise comparisons. The results indicate that the manual pair-wise comparisons is the most time-consuming of the techniques, and also the least easy to use. Tool-supported pair-wise comparisons is the fastest technique and it is as easy to use as the Planning game. The techniques do not differ significantly regarding accuracy.