Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change in northwest Ethiopia. Design/methodology/approach To achieve this aim, data was collected from a survey of 352 households, which were stratified into three groups: Lay Gayint (138 or 39%), Tach Gayint (117 or 33%) and Simada district (97 or 28%). To gain a deeper understanding of the vulnerability of these households, two approaches were used: the livelihood vulnerability index (LVI), consisting of 32 indicators, and the socioeconomic vulnerability index (SeVI), containing 31 indicators. Furthermore, qualitative data was obtained through focus group discussions conducted in six randomly chosen groups from the three districts, which were used to supplement the findings. Findings Both methods indicate that Simada is the most vulnerable district, followed by Tach Gayint and Lay Gayint. According to the SeVI approach, Simada district showed the highest level of sensitivity and exposure to climate-related hazards, as well as the lowest score for adaptive capacity. However, using the LVI approach, Simada district was found to have the highest sensitivity to climate effects and exposure to climate-related hazards, along with a higher adaptive capacity than both Lay Gayint and Tach Gayint districts. Originality/value Although there are numerous studies available on the vulnerability of farmers to climate change, this particular study stands out by using and contrasting two approaches – the LVI and the SeVI – to assess the vulnerability of households in the study area. Previous research has indicated that no single approach is sufficient to evaluate climate change vulnerability, as each approach has its own strengths and limitations. The findings of this study have significant implications for policymakers and development practitioners, as they can use the results to identify the households that are most vulnerable to climate change. This will enable them to design adaptation options that are tailored to the specific needs of each community and that will effectively address the risks of current and future climate change.