Aim: To find and compare the qualitative and quantitative change in color and surface texture of feldspathic ceramic, pressable ceramic and ceramic used in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing CAD/CAM after different surface treatments namely glazing, abrading and polishing. To compare the effectiveness of pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex polishing system used in the study. Setting and Design: In-vitro , comparative study. Materials and Methods: Disc-shaped feldsapathic, pressable, CAD/CAM ceramic specimens were fabricated. Surface roughness and color parameters Δ L*, Δa*, and Δ b* were measured before glazing, after glazing, after abrasion with 02 diamond bur and after polishing with two different polishing systems. Surface roughness was measured qualitatively using scanning electron microscopy and quantitatively using an optical profilometer. The value of color parameters was obtained using a colorimeter. Data were statistically analyzed with ANOVA. Statistical Analysis Used: SPSS software 20.0 version (IBM, New York, United states of America). Results: Unglazed feldspathic, pressable and CAD/CAM porcelain specimens showed a mean surface roughness value of 2.73 ± 0.38, 3.54 ± 1.42, and 3 ± 1.74 specimens. After glazing and polishing, the surface roughness values decreased. After abrasion, surface roughness values increased. Polishing did not alter the color along the red green axis and yellow blue axis. Conclusions: Abraded specimens of feldspathic, pressable and CAD/CAM after polishing using pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex disc became smoother than glazed specimens. When pearl finish polishing paste and Soflex discs were compared for their effectiveness the former appeared to be more superior but not to a significant level. Mechanically altering feldspathic, pressable, and porcelain used in CAD/CAM technology does not cause any change in shade.