Purpose: Extension and advisory services (EAS) are crucial for farm success and rural well-being in Canada. Like elsewhere, Ontario's EAS has transformed, embracing diverse providers and methods. While research on pluralistic EAS grows, little examines how stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of different methods. This study fills the gap, evaluating Ontario's pluralistic EAS methods through key stakeholder perspectives. Methodology: Using the Q-methodology, we conducted an online survey on Qualtrics with 49 purposively selected producers, advisors, and researchers and used PQMethod software to analyze their viewpoints. Findings: The findings revealed three factors representing the respondents' views about the usefulness of different advisory methods. The first factor focuses on personalized methods, while the second highlights digitally engaged methods. The third factor stresses traditional extension methods that include group and training-based activities. Researchers' perspectives leaned towards digital methods, while producers emphasized personalized extension methods, and most advisors were loaded under traditional advisory methods. Practical implications: Stakeholders value traditional and personalized extension methods for their interactivity and on-farm presence. The study suggests a personalized advice strategy integrating online, face-to-face, and group methods. Policy implications: The findings provide insight for policymakers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness of pluralistic agricultural advisory service delivery by integrating various advisory methods. Theoretical implication: This study enriches the discourse on pluralistic advisory systems by presenting stakeholder perspectives on method efficacy. Originality/value: This unique study unveils multi-stakeholder views on advisory methods, aiding Ontario farmers to receive relevant, accurate information and meet their needs.