ABSTRACT In a resource‐constrained setting, maximizing plateletpheresis efficiency is critical. We believe leveraging advanced apheresis device software to enhance platelet yield, reduce consumables, and shorten procedure times offers significant advantages. This study compared Haemonetics, Trima, and Optia apheresis devices, analyzing donor and machine parameters. It also assessed how high‐yield collections and recent software updates on Trima and Haemonetics devices impact donor safety. The goal was to find the best practices for optimizing both donor safety and platelet collection. Analyzing 900 procedures (300 per device), Trima and Optia yielded significantly more platelets (9 × 10 11 ) in less time compared to Haemonetics (5.7 × 10 11 ) ( p < 0.05). Trima collected10–12 × 10 11 platelets from significantly more donors with lower pre‐donation counts than Optia ( p < 0.05). Optia led to the fewest adverse events (0.7%). Donor weight was significantly higher for yields > 9 × 10 11 on Optia and Trima ( p < 0.05). Haemonetics' 3.6–3.8 × 10 11 yield group had significantly lower session time, donor weight, and presession platelet counts ( p < 0.05). Software updates (200 sessions/device) significantly boosted Trima's yields to 14.8 × 10 11 while reducing adverse events (1% vs. 2.3% pre‐update). Haemonetics also saw improved yields and fewer adverse events (1% vs. 4.3%), though its overall yield remained lower (6.3 × 10 11 , p < 0.05). Both maintained safe post‐procedure platelet counts (> 130 000/μL). However, Trima's predicted yields for very high collections (> 12 × 10 11 ) significantly differed from lab‐determined yields. Trima and Optia provide better platelet collection efficiency than Haemonetics. Software updates improved both Trima and Haemonetics' performance and safety; however, Trima's high‐yield predictions need refining. Optimal settings, updated software, and careful donor selection are essential for maximizing platelet yield and donor safety in resource‐limited areas.