Cilj: Ciljevi istraživanja bili su utvrditi postoji li razlika u mjerenju intraokularnog tlaka (IOT) Goldmanovom aplanacijskom tonometrijom (GAT) i air-puff tonometrijom (APT) te usporediti osjećaj ugode prilikom mjerenja IOT-a objema metodama. Ispitanici i metode: Ovom presječnom studijom obuhvaćena su 133 ispitanika kojima je učinjen standardni oftalmološki pregled. Ispitanici su na pregled dolazili zbog korekcije refrakcijske greške od listopada 2017. do travnja 2018. godine na Polikliniku za oftalmologiju „Oculus“ u Osijeku. Isključni kriteriji bili su dob manja od 18 godina, liječenje od glaukoma, operativni zahvat na prednjem ili stražnjem segmentu oka, degenerativne promjene na prednjem segmentu oka ili teži poremećaj suznog filma. Svim ispitanicima izmjeren je IOT objema metodama, nakon čega su ispitanici dobrovoljno ispunili anketu u kojoj su se prikupljali sljedeći podatci: dob, spol, nošenje leća, broj pregleda mjerenja IOT-a te procjena ugodnosti pregleda GAT-om i APT-om. Rezultati: Presječna studija uključila je 133 pacijenta (83 žene, 50 muškaraca). Medijan dobi ispitanika bio je 51 godina. Utvrđena je statistički značajna razlika između izmjerenog IOT-a desnog i lijevog oka GAT-om i APT-om (t-test za zavisne uzorke, P < 0,001). Nije bilo statistički značajnih razlika u ocjeni ugode mjerenja IOT-a GAT-om i APT-om (Fisherov egzaktni test, P = 0,180). Zaključci: Iako APT ima određene prednosti u odnosu na GAT, GAT daje preciznije rezultate mjerenja IOT-a te se s razlogom danas smatra zlatnim standardom u mjerenju IOT-a. Aim: The objectives of the study were to determine whether there is any difference in the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and air-puff tonometry (APT) and to compare the feeling of comfort when measuring the IOP by both methods. Participants and methods: This cross-sectional study included 133 participants, who underwent standard ophthalmic examination. Participants were examined for correction of refractive error from October 2017 to April 2018 at the Ophthalmology polyclinic “Oculus”, Osijek. Exclusion criteria were age under 18 years, glaucoma treatment, operative surgery at the anterior or posterior eye segment, degenerative changes in the anterior eye segment, or tear film disorder. IOP was measured in all participants by both methods, after which participants voluntarily completed a questionnaire in which the following data were collected: age, gender, data on wearing lenses, number of IOP measures, and evaluation of the comfort level of GAT and APT. Results: This cross-sectional study included 133 patients (83 women, 50 men). The median of the participants’ age was 51. There was a statistically significant difference between the measured IOP of the right and left eye with the GAT and APT (t-test, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the comfort level of IOP measured with GAT and APT (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.180). Conclusions: Although APT has some advantages over GAT, GAT provides more accurate results for IOP measurement and is therefore considered a gold standard for IOT measurement today.