This study investigated the effectiveness of essay-based and objective assessments in evaluating university students' writing skills and examined the extent to which combining both assessment types provides a more comprehensive evaluation. A mixed-methods design was adopted, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Data were collected using a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire consisting of four sections: perceptions of essay-based assessments, perceptions of objective assessments, comparative evaluation of both assessment types, and open-ended questions for additional qualitative insights. The questionnaire was administered to a purposive sample of 27 experts in language assessment and English language teaching at the university level. These experts were selected based on their academic qualifications and professional experience in writing assessment. The instrument aimed to capture expert judgments regarding the effectiveness of each assessment type in evaluating different dimensions of students' writing skills. The findings indicated that experts generally perceived essay-based assessments as more effective than objective assessments in fostering and evaluating students' creativity and higher-order writing skills. However, the results also demonstrated strong support for using a combination of essay-based and objective assessments, as this integrated approach was viewed as more effective for holistic writing evaluation. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in experts' responses based on academic rank, years of experience, or field of specialization. Based on these findings, the study recommends adopting a multidimensional assessment approach that integrates both essay-based and objective assessments to achieve a more balanced and valid evaluation of university students' writing skills. Future research is suggested to empirically examine students' writing performance outcomes under combined assessment models rather than relying solely on perception-based data.