Several methods for analyzing CgA using either monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies have been developed, which differ in their diagnostic performance. The present paper describes the results of a prospective multicenter study aimed at comparing the clinical value of the two most widely used commercially available CgA assay kits in patients affected by neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Two hundred sixty-one patients from 40 different centers and 99 healthy subjects were evaluated. CgA levels were measured with two different methods, a two-step immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). CgA was measured centrally by two reference laboratories, one of which used IRMA and the other ELISA, and it was measured by the participating institutions with the method routinely used by each of them. The major findings of the present study were: (i) the two assays for the determination of CgA present good diagnostic performance; (ii) both assays are robust and guarantee comparable results when applied in different settings (central vs local laboratory); (iii) the negative/positive cutoff points (87 ng/mL for IRMA and 21.3 U/L for ELISA) were established according to standardized criteria; (iv) the results obtained with the two assays in basal clinical samples of patients affected by NETs show an apparently satisfactory correlation (rs=0.843, p<0.0001). However, a possibly clinically meaningful 36% discordance rate was found. These findings support the hypothesis that the two CgA kits might provide partially different information.