Two common methods of measuring forest stand woody stem attributes include prism plots for basal area and modified point-distance for stem density. The data from each method can be used for the other calculation; that is, prism data can provide stem density, and point-distance datacan provide estimated basal area. We examined data from the same 10 stands using the two techniques to determine whether the results for each calculation were comparable and/or consistent. There was a significant correlation between the estimated tree (defined as stems >10 cm) basal areas,and between tree stem densities, derived from the two methods (P < 0.01). Prism plots provided significantly higher estimated tree stem densities (+23.5%; P < 0.05) compared to estimates from the point-distance technique, but there was no difference between estimated treebasal area. For all stems, that is also including stems <10 cm dbh, there was no difference between the two methods for estimated basal area or stem density. There was no correlation between total stem densities derived from the two methods. This is likely because the prism plot method(two-factor metric prism) sampled relatively few trees with small diameters, whereas the point distance technique, as used, sampled small trees independently from trees using a diameter distinction. When we removed two young stands with <50 trees/ha, there was no difference in estimatesof stem density. We concluded that, for boreal forest stands with a normal density of trees (i.e., >10 cm dbh and 900 to 3,000 stems/ha), either method would provide comparable estimates of stem density and basal area. We found no time difference in conducting surveys using either method.