The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale (MFSS) have been proposed to advance conceptualizations of morality. This study assesses the factor structure of the Dutch translations of the short version of the MFQ (20 items) and the full MFSS. The five-factor model posited by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) is compared against alternative models of morality. Correlational analyses are performed between the best-fitting models. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis of the optimal model is tested across gender. Data are taken from an online survey of a student sample (N = 1496). Results suggest that the Dutch translation of the MFQ20 does not converge on the proposed five-factor model. Conversely, MFSS subscales show good model fit, but intercorrelations among the five subscales are high. Weak invariance is retained for MFSS but not for MFQ20. Overall, the present study shows that the Dutch version of the MFSS scale performs better than the MFQ20 in terms of scale reliability, fit indices, and measurement invariance testing. More methodological inquiries on MFSS are welcomed, whereas the use of the MFQ20 should be discouraged. Instead, researchers on moral foundations are encouraged to empirically test the psychometric properties of the recently revised MFQ-2, developed by the authors of MFT as a more accurate instrument for the conceptualization of morality.