The contentious rotational grazing debate has continued without resolution for decades with proponents and opponents drawing contradictory evidence-based conclusions. Lack of explicit distinction in grazing systems' terminology may be an important contributor to the contradictory conclusions, but this issue has received scant attention. To better understand the role of terminology in the grazing management efficacy, we surveyed 870 ranchers in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas during January to March 2022. Dividing ranchers into extensive, intermediate, and intensive groups based on their self-identified grazing practice and paddock numbers, we compared a wide range of variables including ranch/rancher characteristics and grazing outcomes among the three groups. We found that the extensive group differed from the intermediate group in 4–15% of the examined variables, whereas the extensive and intensive groups differed in 63–81% of the variables. In terms of ranching outcomes, we found no difference between the extensive and intermediate groups, yet the extensive group differed from the intensive group in 50–100% of the studied outcomes. Such differences highlight the importance of distinguishing between intermediate and intensive grazing management groups when examining the benefits of rotational grazing over continuous grazing, a notable deficiency in much of the previous literature. Our results also point to the need to refine terminology used for grazing management strategies and intensity to ensure consistent comparisons across studies.