Antisapstain formulations require field efficacy data for registration in some jurisdictions. Efficacy data are also needed to assist chemical suppliers in evaluating new formulations, and to help mills select appropriate products. A standardized approach would increase the comparability of data, increase data acceptance more widely, and improve the chances of executing a reproducible and repeatable test. The American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) recently published a provisional evaluation method (PEM) for evaluating the efficacy of antisapstain formulations in a field test. This method needs to be tested before it can be standardized. The present work evaluates three antisapstain formulations using this method. For comparison, one of the antisapstain formulations was also evaluated using a modified version of the AWPA PEM, and using FPInnovations’ internal antisapstain field test method (the Tony Byrne method). In general, a statistically significant dose response was observed for most of the treatments at one, two, and four months regardless of the evaluation method used. Results were similar for stickered and close-packed samples in the AWPA PEM, and modified AWPA PEM. All of the methods were effective in evaluating antisapstain efficacy. However, the AWPA PEM was the easiest to set up and run. The alternative methods did not offer any advantages in the present test. The most significant problem identified in the AWPA PEM was the restriction that logs be milled within 48 hours of felling. This does not represent typical industry practice. We recommend that the evaluation method specify that the time between felling and milling be consistent with the best practices of local industry, and that lumber cut from the test logs be spotless (rated 0).