Objective: To compare the screening value of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) and QuantiFERON®-TB Gold in tube (QFT-GIT) in the auxiliary diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Methods: A screening test was performed. Patients who were hospitalized in Guangzhou Chest Hospital and underwent QFT-GIT testing from October to December 2020 were prospectively included as research subjects, QFT-Plus testing was added. And the basic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory test results, imaging examinations and other data of these patients were collected. A total of 207 patients were included and divided into tuberculosis group and non-tuberculosis group according to these data. There were 124 cases in the tuberculosis group (94 confirmed patients and 30 clinically diagnosed patients), including 90 males and 34 females, aged 18-93 years, with a median age of 57 (38, 67) years. The non-tuberculosis group included 83 patients (16 patients with non-tuberculous Mycobacteria and 67 patients with other lung diseases), including 49 males and 34 females, with a median age of 60 (51, 68) years. The confirmed patients were subdivided into three grades of low, medium and high Mycobacteriam tuberculosis (MTB) bacterial load, and three grades of mild, moderate and severe pulmonary tuberculosis. The results of QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT were compared, and the levels of IFN-γ in different antigen tubes were compared. Differences between different groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: The QFT-Plus showed a high degree of agreement with the QFT-GIT (κ=0.786, 95%CI: 0.740-0.832), while the main discordant result was QFT-GIT negative/QFT-Plus positive, accounting for 15/17. The sensitivity of QFT-GIT was 80.7%(95%CI: 0.706-0.880), the specificity was 76.3%(95%CI: 0.649-0.850), the positive predictive value was 79.8%(95%CI: 0.697-0.873), and the negative predictive value was 77.3%(95%CI: 0.659-0.859), repectively. QFT-Plus showed a sensitivity of 84.3%(95%CI: 0.743-0.910), a specificity of 78.8% (95%CI: 0.679-0.868), and a positive predictive value of 80.5%(95%CI: 0.703-0.879), the negative predictive value being 82.9%(95%CI: 0.721-0.902), slightly improved to that of the QFT-GIT. Also, this study found that there were significant differences in IFN-γ values between different MTB load or disease severity (P<0.05). Conclusions: There is a good consistency between the QFT-Plus test and the QFT-GIT test, both of which show good application value in the auxiliary diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Moreover, because of the addition of tuberculosis-specific CD8 cell antigen, the QFT-Plus test has higher sensitivity, lower uncertainty and more application value. This study also found that the bacterial load and disease severity of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis may have a certain correlation with the measured value of IFN-γ.