Background: Urinalysis is one of the most commonly performed screening tests in the Clinical laboratory to diagnose and monitor various urological and systemic conditions. Newly developed automated urine analyzers are expected to routinely screen urine to reduce TAT and provide clinicians with prompt clinical information with a lower false-negative rate. The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the two Automated Urine analyzers and compare them with microscopy. Method: There were 124 randomly selected samples of patients coming to the clinical pathology laboratory were taken for each Automated analyzer and microscopic evaluation. The results of various cells, formed elements and microorganisms were compared between both the automated urine analyzers and microscopy and the degree of concordance was calculated for each parameter. Results: The degree of concordance of RBC, WBC and epithelial cells was good between the two automated analyzers; URiSCAN Super+ YD Diagnostics and Sysmex UC-3500 -UF 5000 Urine Analyzer and microscopy with p <0.001. The concordance between the Sysmex UC-3500 - UF 5000 Urine Analyzer and manual microscopy was better than between manual microscopy and Uriscan Super + YD Diagnostics. There was no concordance between all these methods for either crystals, cast, bacteria and fungi with p >0.05 Conclusion: The results from the automated analyzers for RBCs, WBCs and epithelial cells were similar to the result of manual microscopy and the analyzers can be relied upon. However, bacteria, fungi, dysmorphic red cells, casts and crystals need to be analyzed by microscopic examination before giving a final diagnosis.