To compare the visual fields results obtained using the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard (SS) and Faster (SFR), in normal subjects, glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients, and to quantify potential time-saving benefits of the SFR algorithm.Prospective, cross-sectional study.One randomly selected eye from 364 patients (77 normal, 178 glaucoma suspect and 109 glaucoma) seen in a single institution underwent testing using both SS and SFR on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA3). Cumulative test time using each algorithm was compared after accounting for different rates of test reliability. Pointwise and cluster analysis was performed to determine whether there were systematic differences between algorithms.Using SFR had a greater rate of unreliable results (29.3%) compared to SS (7.7%, p < 0.0001). This was mainly due to high false positive rates and seeding point errors. However, modelled test times showed that using SFR could obtain a greater number of reliable results within a shorter period of time. SFR resulted in higher sensitivity values (on average 0.5 dB for glaucoma patients), which was greater under conditions of field loss (<19 dB). Cluster analysis showed no systematic patterns of sensitivity differences between algorithms.After accounting for different rates of test reliability, SFR can result in significant time savings compared to SS. Clinicians should be cognizant of false positive rates and seeding point errors as common sources of error for SFR. Results between algorithms are not directly interchangeable, especially if there is a visual field deficit below 19 dB.