Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to examine whether there is a difference between manual feedback and online feedback with regard to feedback quality, respondents' percentage, reliability and the amount of verbal comments written by students. Background: The quality of teaching is an important component of academic work. There are various methods for testing the quality of teaching; one of these methods is through students' feedback. Methodology: This study used a quantitative approach, including the quantification of qualitative verbal data collected through an open question in the questionnaire. A sample of 180 courses was randomly chosen, 90 courses were evaluated manually and 90 were evaluated online. The number of students ranges from 7 to 60 students per course. In total 4678 students participated in the study. Contribution: The findings show that there is almost an identical pattern of feedback of manual and online course teaching evaluation. These findings encourage a continued use of this evaluation method. Findings: No significant differences were found between manual feedback and online feedback in the students' evaluation of the lecturer/course. The percentage of respondents was significantly higher in the manual feedback than in the online feedback. The number of qualitative comments was significantly greater in the online feedback than in the manual feedback. Impact on Society: The findings of this study refute the claims with regard to the unreliability of an online teaching evaluation. These findings reflect the advantages of using online feedback, such as cost savings, granting more time to students in order to provide feedback, and reducing disturbance during lectures. Recommendations: It would be of great importance to explore if any differences would be found in evaluating students' feedback according to their learning disciplines. Future Research: The gender aspect was not taken into account in this study. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct a follow-up study that will examine gender differences.