This study investigates the comparability of two item response theory based equating methods: true score equating (TSE), and estimated true equating (ETE). Additionally, six scaling methods were implemented within each equating method: mean-sigma, mean-mean, two versions of fixed common item parameter, Stocking and Lord, and Haebara. Empirical test data were examined to investigate the consistency of scores resulting from the two equating methods, as well as the consistency of the scaling methods both within equating methods and across equating methods. Results indicate that although the degree of correlation among the equated scores was quite high, regardless of equating method/scaling method combination, non-trivial differences in equated scores existed in several cases. These differences would likely accumulate across examinees making group-level differences greater. Systematic differences in the classification of examinees into performance categories were observed across the various conditions: ETE tended to place lower ability examinees into higher performance categories than TSE, while the opposite was observed for high ability examinees. Because the study was based on one set of operational data, the generalizability of the findings is limited and further study is warranted.