species were tested for susceptibility to caspofungin, anidulafungin, and micafungin in order to evaluate the roles of Etest and Sensititre YeastOne in antifungal susceptibility testing for daily routines and to survey resistance. A total of 104 species isolates detected from blood cultures were investigated. With EUCAST broth microdilution as the reference method, essential agreement (EA), categorical agreement (CA), very major errors (VME), major errors (ME), and minor (MIN) errors were assessed by reading MICs at 18, 24, and 48 h. By use of EUCAST broth microdilution and species-specific clinical breakpoints (CBPs), echinocandin resistance was not detected during the study period. Using EUCAST CBPs, MIC readings at 24 h for the Etest and Sensititre YeastOne resulted in CA levels of 99% and 93% for anidulafungin and 99% and 97% for micafungin. Using revised CLSI CBPs for caspofungin, CA levels were 92% and 99% for Etest and Sensititre YeastOne. The Etest proved an excellent, easy-to-handle alternative method for testing susceptibility to anidulafungin and micafungin. Due to misclassifications, the Etest is less suitable for testing susceptibility to caspofungin (8% of isolates falsely tested resistant). The CA levels of Sensititre YeastOne were 93% and 97% for anidulafungin and micafungin (24 h) by use of EUCAST CBPs and increased to 100% for both antifungals if CLSI CBPs were applied and to 100% and 99% if Sensititre YeastOne epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) were applied. No one echinocandin could be demonstrated to be superior to another Since resistance was lacking among our isolates, we cannot derive any recommendation from accurate resistance detection by the Etest and Sensititre YeastOne.