Purpose: Gated myocardial perfusion SPECT provides not only myocardial perfusion status but also various functional parameters of left ventricle. We compared left ventricular ejection fraction, end-diastolic volume, LV mass by cardiac SPECT using Quantitative Gated SPECT (QGS), 4D-MSPECT software and standard 2D-echocardiography. Materials and Methods: One hundred fourteen patients (male 51, female 63; 29-85 years old, mean 61.3 ¡¾ 13.3 years old) with normal perfusion status on Tc-99m tetrofosmin gated myocardial perfusion SPECT were analyzed retrospectively. Ejection fraction (LVEF), End-diastolic volume (LVED), LV mass (LVM) were calculated using QGS, 4D-MSPECT, and LVEF, LVM using 2D-echocardiography. Statistical analysis including Bland-Altman plot was performed using MedCalc? (MedCalc software, Mariakerke, Belgium). Results: The correlation of LVEF between methods was good: 0.95/0.96 (stress/rest) between QGS and 4D-MSPECT, 0.79 between QGS and echocardiography, 0.79 between 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography (p<0.001). Using Bland-Altman plot, the 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and 4D-MSPECT ranged from -12.7% to 7.3% / from -12.2% to 6.5% (stress/rest). The agreement between QGS and echocardiography, 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography ranged from -17.4% to 24.0%, and -14.8% to 27.0% respectively. The correlation of LVM between methods was also good: 0.95 between QGS and 4D-MSPECT, 0.76 between QGS and echocardiography, 0.73 between 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography (p<0.001). The 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and 4D-MSPECT ranged from -33.8 g to 14.1 g (stress/rest). The 95% confidence interval of agreement between QGS and echocardiography, 4D-MSPECT and echocardiography ranged from -148.7 g to 21.8. g, and -142.8 g to 35.5 g, respectively. Conclusion: There was a good correlation for LVEF, LVED, LVM among methods (QGS, 4D-MSPECT, echocardiography), but the variance between methods was big. Therefore, the functional parameters by each method cannot be used interchangeably. (Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;42(6):435-443)