The 3D imaging technologies became of paramount importance for example in disciplines such as forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology where they are being used more and more frequently.There is a number of new possibilities that they offer, for instance an easier and faster sharing of data among institutions, a possibility of permanent documentation, or new opportunities of data analysis. An important requirement, however, is whether the data obtained from different scanning devices are comparable and whether the possible varying outputs could affect further analyses, such as estimation of the biological profile. Therefore, we aimed to investigate two important questions:(1) whether 3D models acquired by two different scanning technologies (structured light and laser) are comparable and (2) whether the scanning equipment has an effect on the anthropological analyses, such as age-at-death estimation and sex assessment.3D models of ossa coxa (n=29) were acquired by laser (NextEngine) and structured light (HP 3D Structured Light Scanner PRO 2) scanners. Resulting 3D models from both scanners were subjected to age-at-death analyses (via quantitative method of Stoyanova et al., 2017) and sex analyses (via Diagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste 2 of Brůžek et al., 2017). Furthermore, high quality scans of small sample (n=5) of pubic symphyseal surface with RedLux Profiler device were acquired as reference surfaces to which the outputs from both scanners were compared. Small deviations between surfaces were more evident in more rugged surfaces (in areas of depression and protrusion). Even though small differences from the reference surfaces were found they did not have significant effect on age and sex estimates. It never resulted in opposite sex assignment and no significant differences were observed between age estimates (with the exception of TPS/BE model).