BACKGROUND: One of the risk factors for the development of coronary heart disease is high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. National Cholesterol Education Program ATP III guidelines suggest drug therapy to be considered at LDL-cholesterol levels >130 mg/dl. This makes accurate reporting of LDL cholesterol crucial in the management of Coronary heart disease. Estimation of LDL cholesterol by direct LDL method is accurate, but it is expensive. Hence, We compared Friedewald's calculated LDL values with direct LDL values. AIM: To evaluate the correlation of Friedewalds calculated LDL with direct LDL method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared LDL cholesterol measured by Friedewald's formula with direct LDL method in 248 samples between the age group of 20-70 years. Paired -test was used to test the difference in LDL concentration obtained by a direct method and Friedewald's formula. The level of significance was taken as < 0.05. Pearsons correlation formula was used to test the correlation between direct LDL values with Friedewald's formula. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the direct LDL values when compared to calculated LDL by Friedewalds formula ( = 0.140). Pearson correlation showed there exists good correlation between direct LDL versus Friedewalds formula (correlation coefficient = 0.98). The correlation between direct LDL versus Friedewalds calculated LDL was best at triglycerides values between 101 and 200 mg/dl. CONCLUSION: This study indicates calculated LDL by Friedewalds equation can be used instead of direct LDL in patients who cannot afford direct LDL method.