ABSTRACT Objectives Rising demands for aesthetic outcomes make precise preoperative assessment essential. Despite advances in digital workflows, their accuracy versus conventional techniques remains uncertain. The current study comparatively assessed the trueness of digitally‐ and conventionally‐fabricated mockups. Materials and Methods Fourteen patients needing ceramic veneers in the anterior maxilla participated. Each received three mockups: one fabricated conventionally and two digitally (additive and subtractive). The mockups were placed intraorally and scanned. The scans were superimposed on a reference model to evaluate the accuracy of the entire workflow and on the reference wax‐up to assess production accuracy. Data were analyzed by paired samples test, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) ( α = 0.05). Results For the whole production process, the root mean square (RMS) was 0.13 (0.04) for the conventional method, which was significantly lower than that for the additive as 0.60 (0.07) and subtractive of 0.51 (0.07) digital techniques ( p < 0.001). Also, for the production phase, the mean RMS of different methods was significantly different ( p < 0.001). The conventional method showed the lowest mean by 0.22 (0.07), and the additive technique showed the highest mean by 0.76 (0.02) RMS. The mean RMS was 0.73 (0.02) for the subtractive method. Conclusions The trueness of the conventional method was higher than that of the digital method for both the whole production process and the production phase. The conventional method significantly decreases the chairside time especially when tooth surface treatment is not required. The trueness of the subtractive method was higher than that of the additive method.