Outcome evaluations are becoming a routine aspect of psychotherapy, yet many measures are deemed inappropriate for everyday clinical use. Outcome evaluations help to inform clinical decision making and enhance treatment effects, whilst guiding therapy and tracking the client’s progress. Many current outcome evaluations are overly complex, lengthy and are not providing information in the most effective format possible. Given that mental health services nationally are increasingly being accessed, it is essential that the most effective and feasible outcome evaluations are being administered to maintain the meaningfulness of therapy. The present study explored an ultra-brief treatment session outcome measure called the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), and compared it to the current New Zealand mandated outcome evaluation Health of Our Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOSCA) (N = 98). A quantitative, non-experimental correlational approach was taken, as studied in a clinical sample. Data was obtained through Lakes District Health Board, Infant, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. The findings suggest that the ORS measures change and that it is comparable to HoNOSCA on 4 of the 13 HoNOSCA items. Interestingly, these 4 HoNOSCA items all significantly correlate with ORS’s ‘Overall’ measure. Higher ORS scores positively correlate with higher SRS scores, highlighting the importance of therapeutic alliance. Maori intake scores are slightly lower than European intake scores, but even out following therapy. Implications for future clinical directions and future research are discussed.