Abstract Background Rapid molecular diagnosis became a key solution for healthcare institutions across the world, after COVID-19 pandemic. It has enabled diagnosis based on improved quality, accuracy, analytical sensitivity, and turnaround times for laboratory services. It also has positioned this methodology as a trusted technology for point-of-care settings. These solutions also allow to consolidate combinations of different pathogen detection in panels. This study assessed the analytical and clinical performance of the novel Savanna RVP4 panel against other available methodologies. Methods A prospective study was performed, considering 84 patient samples obtained from nasopharyngeal swabs. Samples were processed in parallel after collection, using Savanna RVP4, and either QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV Panel (59 samples), Sansure iPonatic (10 samples) and BioFire® Respiratory 2.1 (RP2.1) Panel (15 samples). Samples were collected in either MTU, commercial or homemade PBS. Results Overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 96.43% and 99.64%, respectively for the aggregated panels (Table 1). By technology, the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 93.75% and 99.51% versus QIAstat, 100% and 100% versus Biofire, respectively. For iPonatic comparisons, no positive samples were processed and 100% of specificity was obtained. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive samples were compared using box plots. Ct values also showed slighlty differences, where means were lower for RSV and Flu A in Savanna (22 and 22.9 respectively) versus other PCR assays (22.5 and 24.5 respectively). For SARS-CoV-2, Ct values were higher versus other methods (19.8 vs 13.6). Conclusions Results obtained with Savanna RVP4 were comparable to those obtained with other methodologies, correlating with patient clinical symptoms. Samples showing disagreement for QIAstat comparison panel, in Flu A and RSV assays, corresponded to the same patient samples for the two methodologies, where Ct obtained in QIAstat were above 33. This evaluation also provides strong evidence supporting PBS usage for samples processed in Savanna RVP.