Abstract Objective: The objective of the study was to compare conventional Pap smear (CPS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) by the split technique method in terms of satisfactory/unsatisfactory smear, the prevalence of inflammatory smear, and cellular atypia. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out between 2017 and 2019 after obtaining ethics committee approval. A total of 200 women were recruited for the study attending the gynecology outpatient clinic with various symptoms, such as discharge per vaginum, dysmenorrhea, infertility, and pain abdomen, and after obtaining written informed consent. Pregnant women, women with pelvic inflammatory disease, and cases with obvious cervical lesions or growth were excluded. Pap smear was taken with a Rovers Cervex-Brush. The split sample technique was followed wherein using one side of the brush conventional slide was prepared and fixed with cytospray. The brush head was detached and suspended in the preservative fluid for LBC. Both CPS and LBC were sent for examination. The same experienced pathologist examined the samples. The qualitative variables were compared using the Mcnamer test to compare the prevalence of unsatisfactory smear, inflammatory smear, and cellular abnormalities between CP and LBC. The categorical variables were presented in number and percentage (%) and continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and median. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The maximum number of patients (62.5%) belonged to the fourth decade of life. The mean age was 39 years. A total of 93% of women were from the urban areas while 7% belonged to the rural areas. The majority of the women (78.5%) were multiparous and around 43% were second para. Pap smear reports were satisfactory in 93.5% of women in CPS, while 99% of reports were satisfactory in LBC. The difference between CPS and LBC in terms of the prevalence of satisfactory/unsatisfactory smear was statistically significant with a P = 0.0064. Dense inflammation reported by all LBC smears was reported as the same in CPS. The strength of agreement between CPS and LBC was not strong in terms of different grades of inflammation with a kappa value of 0.24. There was no difference in the reporting of cellular atypia between both methods. Conclusions: CPS and LBC are equal in terms of detection of inflammation and epithelial cell abnormality. Infections were also detected by both the screening methods CPS and LBC. The only thing which makes LBC better is the rate of satisfactory smears and the benefit of adding human papillomavirus DNA testing possible only in LBC.