Prior work suggests that prospective measurement of cigarette use may be more reliable and valid than retrospective self-reports. Despite several studies comparing retrospective and prospective methods, there are a myriad of prospective methods that have not been directly compared, including spent cigarette filters that are returned to the laboratory by participants and diary logs of cigarette use on an electronic device via ecological momentary assessment. The current secondary data analysis compared the reliability of retrospective global self-report, returned cigarette filters, and electronic diary logs among a sample of cigarette smokers that also use smokeless tobacco (SLT; N = 51) over two consecutive weeks. CPD values also were compared to salivary cotinine levels to determine whether any method was associated more strongly with nicotine/tobacco exposure. Results indicated that CPD values via global self-report were significantly larger than returned filter and diary log daily averages across both weeks (t(50) = 8.28 to 9.35; p < .001). Both prospective measures showed less digit bias and more variation in smoking behavior across days than global self-reports. Only returned CPD values were correlated significantly with salivary cotinine levels (r(593) = 0.09, p = .024). Importantly, most reliability outcomes for returned filters and logged CPD did not differ significantly, suggesting that they may be comparable prospective methods for measuring cigarette use. Because returned filters and diary logs did not differ from one another, researchers’ selection of a prospective measurement method should rely on considerations of participant compliance, protocol burden, and specific research questions.