Several analysis software packages for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification from cardiac PET studies exist, but they have not been compared using concordance analysis, which can characterize precision and bias separately. Reproducible measurements are needed for quantification to fully develop its clinical potential.Fifty-one patients underwent dynamic Rb-82 PET at rest and during adenosine stress. Data were processed with PMOD and FlowQuant (Lortie model). MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) polar maps were quantified and analyzed using a 17-segment model. Comparisons used Pearson's correlation ρ (measuring precision), Bland and Altman limit-of-agreement and Lin's concordance correlation ρc = ρ·C b (C b measuring systematic bias).Lin's concordance and Pearson's correlation values were very similar, suggesting no systematic bias between software packages with an excellent precision ρ for MBF (ρ = 0.97, ρc = 0.96, C b = 0.99) and good precision for MFR (ρ = 0.83, ρc = 0.76, C b = 0.92). On a per-segment basis, no mean bias was observed on Bland-Altman plots, although PMOD provided slightly higher values than FlowQuant at higher MBF and MFR values (P < .0001).Concordance between software packages was excellent for MBF and MFR, despite higher values by PMOD at higher MBF values. Both software packages can be used interchangeably for quantification in daily practice of Rb-82 cardiac PET.