Background: Image analysis of 1D gel electrophoresis can be performed by numerous types of software. The results are used, e.g., to create reference data or for association with diseases. In this study, we analyzed statistical differences between two types of established image analysis software. The aim was to inform customers that different types of software may produce various results which may lead to different data interpretations. Methods: Automated serum protein electrophoresis (albumin, α 1 -globulin, α 2 -globulin, β -globulin and γ -globulin) was performed with sera from 25 patients (randomized). Gel bands were quantitatively analyzed by TotalLab 120 (TL120), LabImage 1D (L340) and Phoresis (reference standard). Finally, the degree of deviation (vs. reference standard) of obtained data was investigated by statistical methods (BlandAltman, Passing-Bablok, reliability). Results: Passing-Bablok analysis: in L340 and TL120 linearity of test data vs. reference data was passed (p < 0.01; L340: y = 0.00 + 1.00x vs. TL120: y = -0.01 + 1.02x). Bland-Altman analysis: L340 exhibited a lower deviation and standard deviation to reference (mean: -1.5 % ; SD: 23.0 % to -25.9 % ) vs. TL120 (mean: -8.2 % ; SD: 32.6 % to -48.6 % ). Reliability: L340 (k = 0.404; 95 % CI = 0.315 -0.493) vs. TL120 (k = 0.105; 95 % CI = 0.105 -0.245). Detailed serum protein analysis