This study aimed to test the performance of 3D digitizer, CT scanner, and surface scanner in detecting cranial fluctuating asymmetry. Sets of 32 landmarks (6 in the midline and 13 bilateral) were acquired from 14 archeological crania using a 3D digitizer, and from 3D models generated from a CT scanner and surface scanner using Viewbox 4. Levels of shape variation were analyzed in MorphoJ using Procrustes analysis of variance and Principal component analysis. Intra‐observer error accounted for 1.7%, 1.8%, and 4.5% of total shape variation for 3D digitizer, CT scanner, and surface scanner respectively. Fluctuating asymmetry accounted for 15%–16% of total shape variation. Variation between techniques accounted for 18% of total shape variation. We found a higher level of missing landmarks in our surface scan data than for both 3D digitizer and CT scanner data, and both 3D model‐based techniques sometimes obscured taphonomic damage. All three 3D techniques are appropriate for measuring cranial fluctuating asymmetry. We advise against combining data collected with different techniques.