The scale-sensitive fractal analysis (SSFA) of dental microwear textures is traditionally performed using the software Toothfrax. SSFA has been recently integrated to the software MountainsMap® as an optional module. Meanwhile, Toothfrax support has ended. Before switching to the new module, the outputs between the two software packages must be compared for consistency. We have performed such a test using Bayesian modelling on three datasets including dental surfaces of sheep (Merceron, Ramdarshan, et al., 2016) and guinea pigs (Winkler, Schulz-Kornas, Kaiser, Cuyper, et al., 2019) from controlled feeding experiments, as well as surfaces of quartzite and flint flakes used in an actualistic archeological experiment on cleaning procedures (Pedergnana, Calandra, Bob, et al., 2020). We found that the two software packages calculate significantly different values for the SSFA parameters epLsar, Asfc, HAsfc9 and R2, even when the same settings are used. Nevertheless, the treatments (different diets or cleaning procedures) are discriminated similarly within each dataset. While the new software module is as good as the original software to differentiate treatments, our results imply that the outputs from the two software packages are not directly comparable and, as such, cannot be merged. Surface texture analysts should therefore consider re-analyzing published surfaces before integrating them in their studies.