Objective The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models predict outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) but have not been compared in large datasets. The objective of this is study is to validate externally and compare the IMPACT and CRASH prognostic models for prediction of outcome after moderate or severe TBI. Design External validation study. Patients We considered 5 new datasets with a total of 9036 patients, comprising three randomized trials and two observational series, containing prospectively collected individual TBI patient data. Measurements Outcomes were mortality and unfavourable outcome, based on the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) at six months after injury. To assess performance, we studied the discrimination of the models (by AUCs), and calibration (by comparison of the mean observed to predicted outcomes and calibration slopes). Main Results The highest discrimination was found in the TARN trauma registry (AUCs between 0.83 and 0.87), and the lowest discrimination in the Pharmos trial (AUCs between 0.65 and 0.71). Although differences in predictor effects between development and validation populations were found (calibration slopes varying between 0.58 and 1.53), the differences in discrimination were largely explained by differences in case-mix in the validation studies. Calibration was good, the fraction of observed outcomes generally agreed well with the mean predicted outcome. No meaningful differences were noted in performance between the IMPACT and CRASH models. More complex models discriminated slightly better than simpler variants. Conclusions Since both the IMPACT and the CRASH prognostic models show good generalizability to more recent data, they are valid instruments to quantify prognosis in TBI.