As the name may suggest, the difference between the two processes lies in the order of the two dispute settlement mechanisms involved. A change in the sequence, however, has many implications. 

In 𝐌𝐞𝐝-𝐀𝐫𝐛, the parties first resort to mediation wherein their interests can be mutually satiated. If mediation is not conclusive due to an impasse, then the parties take their unresolved issues to arbitration. Here, the mediator steps into the role of an arbitrator and renders a binding decision. However, this process is widely criticised due to the possibility of the mediator-cum-arbitrator’s judgment being prejudiced by confidential information disclosed to them in the mediation segment of the resolution process. Therefore, it is suggested that the mediator and the arbitrator should be two distinct persons. 

In 𝐀𝐫𝐛-𝐌𝐞𝐝, a skilled independent party first arbitrates the matter. They record evidence, hear the legal arguments of the disputants, and write an award. However, they refrain from passing the award at this instance. Next, they try to settle the dispute via mediation. If the parties fail to reach an agreement via mediation, only then the arbitrator unseals their previously decided award and makes it binding on the parties. The existence of the arbitration award and the uncertainty surrounding it acts as a source of eustress to the parties, which pushes them to reach an amicable agreement. It is trite law that once the mediation proceedings commence, the arbitral award can not be altered. This process removes the concern of the Med-Arb process regarding the use of confidential information.