Visual Field Software Compared 2026: Humphrey vs Octopus vs FDT
Detailed comparison of Humphrey, Octopus, and FDT visual field software. Which perimetry platform best fits your glaucoma monitoring workflow in 2026?
Editor's picks
ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer 3
The clinical reference standard, with SITA test strategies and Guided Progression Analysis.
Best for: Any practice that wants the reference-standard visual field for glaucoma monitoring.
Haag-Streit Octopus
Full-field static and kinetic perimetry with EyeSuite trend and cluster analysis.
Best for: Practices wanting a strong Humphrey alternative with full-field testing and cluster analysis.
ZEISS FDT / Matrix
Frequency-doubling technology detects early glaucomatous loss quickly in a compact unit.
Best for: Practices wanting fast, portable glaucoma screening rather than full threshold monitoring.
How we ranked these tools
Perimetry capability audit
Test strategies (SITA, threshold, screening), progression software, normative databases, and chair time checked against manufacturer specifications.
Clinical review aggregation
Peer comparisons and optometry user feedback collected and de-duplicated.
Criteria scoring
Each platform scored on features (40%), ease of use (30%), and value (30%), weighted for a glaucoma monitoring workflow.
Editorial review
Scores reconciled with acquisition cost, test speed, and interoperability of printouts.
Scores are based on three dimensions: Features (~40%), Ease of use (~30%), Value (~30%).
Comparison table
| # | Tool | Category | Score | Visit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer 3
Editor's pick
|
Standard automated perimetry | 8.8/10 | |
| 2 |
Haag-Streit Octopus
Runner-up
|
Full-field alternative | 8.5/10 | |
| 3 |
ZEISS FDT / Matrix
Also great
|
Fast screening perimetry | 8.3/10 |
The visual field is the backbone of glaucoma monitoring, and the perimeter you choose shapes your chair time, your progression decisions, and how easily referral partners can read your results. This guide compares the three perimetry platforms optometrists most often weigh — the ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer, the Haag-Streit Octopus, and Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT/Matrix) — and scores them for a real glaucoma workflow.
What to Look for in a Perimeter
- Test strategy: SITA and SITA Faster (Humphrey) and comparable Octopus strategies cut test time while preserving accuracy — the biggest driver of daily throughput.
- Progression analysis: reliable event- and trend-based progression software (GPA, EyeSuite) is what turns a series of fields into a defensible clinical decision.
- Normative database and interoperability: a large normative database and printouts your referral network recognises matter for co-management.
- Screening vs threshold: FDT/Matrix is fast and sensitive for screening; full threshold SAP is required to monitor established glaucoma.
- Footprint and cost: screening perimeters are compact and affordable; bowl perimeters need space and a larger budget.
How to Choose
If you monitor established glaucoma and want the reference standard everyone can read, the Humphrey HFA3 is the default. If you want a full-field alternative with kinetic testing and flexible software, the Octopus is a strong choice. If your priority is fast, portable screening to catch early loss and triage referrals, FDT/Matrix earns its place alongside — not instead of — a threshold perimeter. Trial each with your own patients and confirm the progression software and printout formats fit your co-management network.
The 3 best options, reviewed
ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer 3
Best for: Any practice that wants the reference-standard visual field for glaucoma monitoring.
Standout feature: The clinical reference standard, with SITA test strategies and Guided Progression Analysis.
The ZEISS Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 (HFA3) is the reference standard for standard automated perimetry. Its SITA (and faster SITA Faster) strategies cut chair time while its Guided Progression Analysis and large normative database make glaucoma progression decisions defensible and universally readable by referral partners. For most practices it is the safe, interoperable choice.
Pros
- Clinical reference standard for SAP
- SITA / SITA Faster reduce chair time
- Guided Progression Analysis for glaucoma
- Universally readable printouts
Cons
- Premium pricing
- Larger footprint than screening perimeters
Haag-Streit Octopus
Best for: Practices wanting a strong Humphrey alternative with full-field testing and cluster analysis.
Standout feature: Full-field static and kinetic perimetry with EyeSuite trend and cluster analysis.
The Haag-Streit Octopus range (600 and 900) is the leading alternative to Humphrey, offering both static and kinetic perimetry, a true full-field option, and EyeSuite software with cluster-trend progression analysis. It can even print Octopus and HFA-style outputs, easing transition for practices moving from Humphrey.
Pros
- Full-field static and kinetic perimetry
- EyeSuite trend and cluster analysis
- Can output HFA-style printouts
- Strong build and optics
Cons
- Smaller installed base than Humphrey
- Learning curve moving from HFA
ZEISS FDT / Matrix
Best for: Practices wanting fast, portable glaucoma screening rather than full threshold monitoring.
Standout feature: Frequency-doubling technology detects early glaucomatous loss quickly in a compact unit.
Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry — now the ZEISS Matrix — uses a flickering-grating stimulus that is sensitive to early glaucomatous damage and fast to run, in a compact, affordable unit. It is excellent for screening and triage but is not a replacement for full threshold SAP when monitoring established glaucoma.
Pros
- Fast, patient-friendly screening
- Sensitive to early glaucomatous loss
- Compact and affordable
- Low chair time
Cons
- Screening tool, not full threshold monitoring
- Less granular than SITA threshold fields
Frequently asked questions
Tools featured in this list
Showing 3 sources.
