Construction stakeholders may face dilemmas when investing more effort in escalating a stalled construction claim, fearing diminishing returns. This research uses non-parametric statistical analysis methods to investigate the efficiency of claims in the construction industry. The study compares the dispute resolution cost, time, outcomes, and satisfaction across 53 construction projects in the United States and the Middle East. The findings indicate that the proportional value of the respondents’ claims in the United States tended to be larger than those in the Middle East. Moreover, arbitration yielded more satisfactory results despite incurring higher expenses and longer timeframes. In contrast, negotiation proved to be the most efficient method in time and cost but resulted in less satisfying settlements when compared to other approaches. By examining the complex trade-offs of the different dispute resolution methods used within the construction industry, this study can help disputing parties manage expectations about the time and cost associated with resolving claims.