Conventional angiography, two-dimensional inflow magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, and color duplex ultrasound (US) were performed on 12 patients in a blinded, prospective study. The ability to grade arterial lesions and plan revascularization interventions were compared. Arterial lesions were categorized as nonsignificant (0%-49% diameter reduction) or significant (50%-100% diameter reduction). Determination of nonsignificant and significant lesions with MR angiography was in agreement with that at conventional angiography in 100 of 140 lesions (71%). Agreement between results of conventional angiography and color duplex US occurred with 114 of 123 infrainguinal lesions (93%). Twenty-one vascular interventions were planned by using conventional angiography; there was agreement with color duplex US in 11 cases and MR angiography in five. Color duplex US performed well in the assessment of infrainguinal disease but was limited in the evaluation of iliac segments because of nonvisualization. The iliac region was visualized in more patients with MR angiography than with color duplex US, but image quality with MR angiography was inconsistent. Strategies to improve MR angiography of the peripheral vasculature merit further study.