Seeing the global emergence and the lack of a definitive cure for COVID-19, it is essential to find the most sensitive and specific detection method to identify infected patients in a timely manner . Our paper aims to compare the clinical sensitivity of different commercial RT-qPCR (Genesig , 1copy, DNA-Techonolgy and Charité primer-probe sets), isothermal PCR (Ustar Isothermal Amplification-Real Time Fluorescent Assay) and immunochromatographic antigen detection (BOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag) assays developed to use in laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 . A total of 119 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected from symptomatic patients . A subset of samples, positive with two RT-qPCR assays were then tested with isothermal PCR and rapid antigen tests . Of the 119 specimens , 65 were positive by at least two PCR assays . All PCR assays showed substantial or perfect match, although some variations in the clinical performance was observed . Of the 37 and 32 remnant nasopharyngeal samples positive by RT-qPCR, respectively, three were positive by the BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag and 14 were detected by the isothermal amplification assay . In conclusion, in the clinical settings we recorded that each of the RT-qPCR assays was superior to other test formats, in particular, the routine use of the DNA-technology assay is recommended . Although alternative recommendations exist, we belive that the use of isothermal amplifiaction assays and antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 diagnosis can only serve as adjuncts while awaiting the PCR result because of their high false-negative rate.