With the rapid advent of computational methods in all fields of engineering, several areas have emerged as significant sources of ambiguity. Among these is the selection of a turbulence model to close the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equation. In ship hydrodynamics, this has been particularly difficult to resolve due to the complex nature of the problem. Furthermore, there are a wide variety of turbulence models all claiming superiority. Thus, navigating to the correct choice is a subject of experience. The present study aims to alleviate the ambiguity inherent in the field. This is done by performing a series of tests on the turbulence models and comparing the integral outcomes with experimental results. Specifically, shallow water cases are chosen due to the additional layer of complexity associated in the prediction of parameters of interest. The results are analysed via a modified bivariate plot, which reveals a strong candidate for the optimum choice of turbulence modelling. The assessment simultaneously takes into account resistance and sinkage, in addition to consistency across different casestudies. The time per iteration also points towards the same candidate, identified as the standard k-ω model, as a good choice within the software used to perform the analysis. The results also suggest that pressure resistance and its constituent components are not coupled with the turbulence model. On the other hand, frictional resistance is highly dependent on the closure selected and is identified as the main contributor to deviations with regards to experimental values. Abe et al. (1994) proposed a modification of the standard k-ε model, henceforth referred to as 'AKN'