Model quality assessment (MQA) is an integral part of protein structure prediction methods that typically generate multiple candidate models. The challenge lies in ranking and selecting the best models using a variety of physical, knowledge-based, and geometric consensus (GC)-based scoring functions. In particular, 3D-Jury and related GC methods assume that well-predicted (sub-)structures are more likely to occur frequently in a population of candidate models, compared to incorrectly folded fragments. While this approach is very successful in the context of diversified sets of models, identifying similar substructures is computationally expensive since all pairs of models need to be superimposed using MaxSub or related heuristics for structure-to-structure alignment. Here, we consider a fast alternative, in which structural similarity is assessed using 1D profiles, e.g., consisting of relative solvent accessibilities and secondary structures of equivalent amino acid residues in the respective models. We show that the new approach, dubbed 1D-Jury, allows to implicitly compare and rank N models in O(N) time, as opposed to quadratic complexity of 3D-Jury and related clustering-based methods. In addition, 1D-Jury avoids computationally expensive 3D superposition of pairs of models. At the same time, structural similarity scores based on 1D profiles are shown to correlate strongly with those obtained using MaxSub. In terms of the ability to select the best models as top candidates 1D-Jury performs on par with other GC methods. Other potential applications of the new approach, including fast clustering of large numbers of intermediate structures generated by folding simulations, are discussed as well.