introduction:Epidemiological studies on amebiasis have been reassessed since Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar were fi rst recognized as distinct species. Because the morphological similarity of these species renders microscopic diagnosis unreliable, additional tools are required to discriminate between Entamoeba species. The objectives of our study were to compare microscopy with ELISA kit (IVD®) results, to diagnose E. histolytica infection, and to determine the prevalence of amebiasis in a sample of students from southeastern Brazil. Methods: In this study, diagnosis was based on microscopy due to its capacity for revealing potential cysts/trophozoites and on two commercial kits for antigen detection in stool samples. Results: For 1,403 samples collected from students aged 6 to 14 years who were living in Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brazil, microscopy underestimated the number of individuals infected with E. histolytica/E. dispar (5.7% prevalence) compared with the ELISA kit (IVD®)-based diagnoses (15.7% for E. histolytica/E. dispar). A comparison of the ELISA (IVD®) and light microscopy results returned a 20% sensitivity, 97% specifi city, low positive predictive value, and high negative predictive value for microscopy. An ELISA kit (TechLab®) that was specifi c for E. histolytica detected a 3.1% (43/1403) prevalence for E. histolytica infection. Conclusions: The ELISA kit (IVD®) can be used as an alternative screening tool. The high prevalence of E. histolytica infection detected in this study warrants the implementation of actions directed toward health promotion and preventive measures.