The separation of diffuse loss from more localized loss in the glaucomatous visual field is desirable for a number of reasons. In previous papers, the characteristics of several methods and algorithms for distinguishing among normal visual fields and those exhibiting diffuse and localized loss have been described and compared. In particular, a new diffuse loss index has been introduced that serves to decide whether or not a diffuse loss component is present and, if so, helps to estimate the amount. Here the approaches utilized for calculating empiric probability maps (Heijl) and the pattern deviation plots (STATPAC) are compared with results obtained with the diffuse loss index algorithm. Based on 197 Octopus G1 examinations of glaucomatous visual fields, it is shown that both methods produce large differences when compared with the diffuse loss index. For this and other reasons, it is argued that both empiric probability maps and pattern deviation plots may lead the inexperienced clinician to ignore valuable information concerning actual pathology.