<b><i>Background:</i></b> Beyond prostate-specific antigen (PSA), other biomarkers for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are available and need to be evaluated for clinical routine. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of the study was to evaluate the Prostate Health Index (PHI) density (PHID) in comparison with PHI in a large Caucasian group &#x3e;1,000 men. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PHID values were used from available patient data with PSA, free PSA, and [−2]pro­PSA and prostate volume from 3 former surveys from 2002 to 2014. Those 1,446 patients from a single-center cohort included 701 men with PCa and 745 with no PCa. All patients received initial or repeat biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparing area under the ROC curves (AUCs), precision-recall approach, and decision curve analysis (DCA). <b><i>Results:</i></b> PHID medians differed almost 2-fold between PCa (1.12) and no PCa (0.62) in comparison to PHI (48.6 vs. 33; <i>p</i> always &#x3c;0.0001). However, PHID and PHI were equal regarding the AUC (0.737 vs. 0.749; <i>p</i> = 0.226), and the curves of the precision-recall analysis also overlapped in the sensitivity range between 70 and 100%. DCA had a maximum net benefit of only ∼5% for PHID versus PHI between 45 and 55% threshold probability. Contrary, in the 689 men with a prostate volume ≤40 cm³, PHI (AUC 0.732) showed a significant larger AUC than PHID (AUC 0.69, <i>p</i> = 0.014). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Based on DCA, PHID had only a small advantage in comparison with PHI alone, while ROC analysis and precision-recall analysis showed similar results. In smaller prostates, PHI even outperformed PHID. The increment for PHID in this large Caucasian cohort is too small to justify a routine clinical use.