Abstract Background To validate the performance, reproducibility, and reliability of BD automated instruments in order to establish a fully automated clinical microbiology laboratory. Methods We used control strains and clinical samples to assess the accuracy, reproducibility, and reliability of the BD Kiestra WCA, the BD Phoenix, and BD Bruker MALDI-Biotyper instruments and compared them to previously established conventional methods. The following processes were evaluated: sample inoculation and spreading, colony counts, sorting of cultures, antibiotic susceptibility test, and microbial identification. Results The BD Kiestra recovered single colonies in less time than conventional methods (e.g. E. coli, 7h vs 10h, respectively) and agreement between both methodologies was excellent for colony counts (κ=0.824) and sorting cultures (κ=0.821). Antibiotic susceptibility tests performed with BD Phoenix and disk diffusion demonstrated 96.3% agreement with both methods. Finally, we compared microbial identification in BD Phoenix and Bruker MALDI-Biotyper and observed perfect agreement (κ=1) and identification at a species level for control strains. Together these instruments allow us to process clinical urine samples in 36h (effective time). Conclusion The BD automated technologies have improved performance compared with conventional methods, and are suitable for its implementation in very busy microbiology laboratories.