Consumer responses were examined in an incomplete factorial design where Australian consumers evaluated 216 beef samples derived from 18 cattle killed in Australia and Korean consumers evaluated 216 samples from the same 18 cattle, plus 216 similar samples from 18 Korean cattle. Samples of the Mm. triceps brachii, longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus were cooked using grill and Korean barbeque methods. Each sample was sensory tested by 10 consumers, who scored it for tenderness, juiciness, like flavour, and overall liking. Consumers then graded each sample as either unsatisfactory (2 star), good every day (3 star), better than every day (4 star), or premium (5 star) quality. For those samples assessed by both Australian and Korean consumers, the Korean consumers graded a higher proportion of samples ‘unsatisfactory’ and a lower proportion of samples ‘premium’ grade product than Australian consumers. Using a composite meat quality score (MQ4) to predict grade, a discriminant analysis showed that the Korean consumers had boundary cut-offs for the lower grades, which were ~4–10 palatability units higher than the Australian consumers. Analysis of the residuals between actual and predicted palatability scores showed that the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading model produced relatively unbiased estimates within ±2 MQ4 units for the different consumer groups, muscle and carcass suspension treatments, with the exception of the M. semimembranosus samples. Implications of the results for both Korean and Australian beef markets through the use of an empirical grading model to predict palatability are discussed.