Proficiency testing (PT) is a widely recognized system to ensure quality testing among clinical laboratories. The American Association of Bioanalysts (AAB) offers an andrology sperm count PT module, and reports results according to the type of counting chamber used by the participating laboratory. Several types of sperm counting chambers are commercially available, and it is difficult for the andrology laboratory to know which is the most advantageous to use. In this report, we have examined the results and variation associated with the use of various sperm counting chambers. PT samples, two challenges per event, were mailed to participating laboratories in the spring and fall of 2001, 2002 and 2003 (total of 6 events and 12 challenges). Suspensions of fixed human sperm were provided to participating laboratories in two concentrations: approximately 16 sperm million/ml and 55 million sperm/ml. Laboratories were instructed to perform sperm counting procedures on the survey samples using the lab’s routine methodology, and to report the results, as well the methodology and type of counting chamber used, to the AAB. The number of participating laboratories over the 6 events ranged from 470–519. The vast majority of laboratories used manual procedures (83.4%) compared with computer assisted semen analysis (CASA; 16.6%). The most common counting chamber used by laboratories performing manual procedures was the hemacytometer (47.0%), followed by the Makler, Micro Cell and Cell Vu chambers (34.6%, 13.6% and 4.8%, respectively). Of those laboratories using CASA procedures, 56.5% used the Makler chamber while the remainder used the Micro Cell chamber (43.5%). In order to determine which counting chamber tended to “overestimate” or “underestimate” sperm counts, the grand mean sperm count was calculated for all participants within each challenge, and these values were compared with the mean results for each counting chamber group. Manual cell counts using the Cell Vu chamber tended to overestimate sperm counts the greatest (mean ± SE; 119.6 ± 12.7%) while CASA cell counts using the Micro Cell chamber tended to underestimate the most (75.3 ± 1.6%). Interestingly, cell counts using the Makler for both the manual and CASA methods came closest to the grand mean (101.8 ± 4.21% and 98.8 ± 2.6%, respectively). Overall, a wide range of variation was noted in the reported results. Coefficients of variation (CV) ranged from a low of 20.4% to a high of 392.9%. Manual counts using the hemacytometer yielded the highest mean CV (124.2 ± 26.0%) while manual counts using the Makler chamber demonstrated the lowest mean CV (32.0 ± 1.7%). These data indicate that the majority of laboratories participating in the AAB andrology PT program performed manual counting methods and used the hematytometer for counting sperm. However, this procedure was also associated with the greatest variation. Although disposable counting chambers, such as the Cell Vu and Micro Cell, have become widely used, and may be more convenient compared with other chambers, manual counting methods using the Makler chamber appeared to yield the most reliable and consistent results.