Community colleges that are exploring ways to dramatically improve outcomes for their students frequently seek a better understanding of the relationship between two "branded" approaches receiving significant publicity: Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) and guided pathways. ASAP was created by the City University of New York (CUNY); MDRC evaluated the program in a random assignment study from 2010 to 2015, and CUNY continues to evaluate it through quasi-experimental analysis. Guided pathways is a strategy pioneered in four-year schools, including Georgia State and Florida State Universities, and championed by many national community college reform advocates, including Achieving the Dream, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the Community College Research Center (CCRC), Complete College America (CCA), and Jobs for the Future. Colleges often ask how a "program" such as ASAP aligns with the "comprehensive institutional reform" approach of guided pathways. This question is understandable: CCRC researchers cite ASAP as an important evidence-based guided pathways intervention--a specific program model that can be a component of an institution's overall guided pathways approach. In a 2015 research overview, CCRC used early ASAP evaluation results as positive evidence for the emphasis that guided pathways efforts place on "higher levels of structure and support." This document draws out more clearly the similarities and differences between ASAP and guided pathways strategies and the research evidence that informs each. It suggests how the two might be aligned in community colleges seeking to dramatically improve student outcomes. The document presents an approach for institutions to reconcile and align the ASAP model with a guided pathways framework for change. The final section addresses what is known about the costs of implementing both ASAP and guided pathways. [A number of MDRC and CUNY staff members contributed to the creation of this report. The CUNY ASAP team includes Donna Linderman, Christine Brongniart, and Mary Hiebert. The MDRC team includes Richard Kazis, Colleen Sommo, and Alyssa Ratledge. Robert Ivry reviewed the draft, Jessica Taketa performed fact-checking support, Jennie Kaufman edited the report, and Carolyn Thomas prepared it for publication.]