Objective This study was to investigate the usefulness and limitations of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We compared echocardiography (ECHO) and perfusion scans to evaluate: left ventricular wall scar formation of the myocardium; hypokinesis, akinesis, or dyskinesis of the myocardium; regurgitation of the aortic and mitral valves; post acute myocardial infarction (AMI) ventricular function; and the viable myocardium (ischemia/infarction). Methods Twenty patients received both cardiac MRI and ECHO. Among them, nine patients received perfusion scans. The modalities and methods examined in this study were not the most advanced or updated protocols. Results We compared the results of cardiac MRI with those of ECHO and perfusion scans. We found significant correlations between the interpretations of left ventricular wall morphological change with dynamic images for hypokinesia, akinesia, and dyskinesia of the myocardium. We also found possible correlations between cardiac MRI and perfusion scans regarding their results to produce a “bull's eye target figure” to evaluate severe ischemia and infarctions. Conclusion We found that cardiac MRI provided a useful adjunct to ECHO on interpretations of left ventricular wall morphological change. The correlations between qualitative interpretations of cardiac MRI versus perfusion scan respective to ‘bull's eye target figures’, were found to be moderately matching. There was an unsatisfactory mismatching of correlations between quantitative by manual input and the drawing inaccuracy and an unavoidable error of the post-processing technique of cardiac MRI on ejection fraction (EF) and end systolic volume (ESV).