Sixty-nine tomato genotypes representing nine Solanum species were evaluated for resistance to Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) subgroup IA and its aphid vector Myzus persicae. Resistance was assessed by visual scoring of symptoms in the field under natural conditions, and in the greenhouse by artificial inoculations through aphid M. persicae and mechanical transmissions in the year 2007 and 2009. Considerable variation in responses was observed among the evaluation methods used. Field evaluations were found liable to errors as different levels were observed for the same genotypes in the different years, however mechanical inoculation was found to be the most useful in identifying CMV subgroup IA resistance, in contrast aphid transmission was most useful in identifying insect transmission resistance. All genotypes observed as highly resistant to CMV subgroup IA in the field or through vector transmission became systemically infected through mechanical inoculations. Using mechanical inoculation, six genotypes (TMS-1 of S. lycopersicum, LA1963 and L06049 of S. chilense, LA1353, L06145 and L06223 of S. habrochaites)were found resistant and another six (L06188 and L06238 of S. neorickii, L06219 of S. habrochaites, L05763, L05776 and L06240 of S. pennellii) were found tolerant showing mild symptoms with severity index (SI) ranging 1-2 and with delayed disease development after a latent period (LP) of 18-30 days. However, these genotypes were found to be resistant to highly resistant in the field and through inoculation by M. persicae; and they also supported low population levels of M. persicae except TMS-1. Another nine genotypes (LA2184 of S. pimpinellifolium L., LA2727 of S. neorickii, LA0111, L06221, L06127 and L06231 of S. peruvianum L., LA1306, L06057 and L06208 of S. chmielewskii) showing a susceptible response after mechanical inoculation were highly resistant, resistant and tolerant after M. persicae transmission. The resistant genotypes, identified in the present study can be exploited in the breeding programmes aimed at developing tomato varieties resistant to CMV subgroup IA and broadening the genetic base of CMV-resistant germplasm. The differences observed between mechanical and aphid transmission suggests that one should consider both evaluation methods for tomato germplasm screening against CMV subgroup IA.