  Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A
way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which
rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a
number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated
with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which
takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a
general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed
properties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the
existing semantics.
