This study presents a preliminary comparison of six commercially-available automated threshold static parameters, consisting of three projection perimeters (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Squid, and Octopus 500) and three light-emitting diode (LED) perimeters (Dicon 2000, Fieldmaster 50, and Digilab 350). Eighteen individuals were included in the study: 6 normal observers (31-58 years old), six patients with glaucomatous field loss in both eyes (55-70 years old), and six patients with neuro-ophthalmologic or retinal visual field abnormalities in both eyes (12-61 years old). Three aspects of quantitative testing were evaluated: (1) the patients' and normal observers' acceptance and subjective impressions of the test procedure; (2) the technician's ease of operating the device and related tasks; and (3) practitioner-oriented considerations such as test-retest reliability, comparability of test results and testing time. Our results showed that no device was clearly superior to the others in all respects. Patients were most favorably impressed with the Octopus 500, Squid, and the Fieldmaster 50, while technician impressions were most favorable to the Humphrey Field Analyzer and the Squid. The projection perimeters (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Squid, and Octopus 500) were the easiest to perform cross-comparisons of test results, although there was considerable variation in the clarity of data interpretation from one case to another. Test-retest reliability and the time of testing varied among the six automated perimeters.