OBJECTIVE: To compare broth microdilution and E-test minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 4 fluoroquinolones against Streptococcus pneumoniae and to determine the effect of these in vitro MIC methods on the calculation of AUC0–24/MIC ratios. METHODS: Levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin MICs were determined by broth microdilution (incubated in air) and E-test (incubated in CO2) for 100 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae. MIC50, MIC90, and geometric mean MIC were calculated. Steady-state serum concentration—time profiles were simulated for once-daily, oral dosing of levofloxacin 500 mg, gatifloxacin 400 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and gemifloxacin 320 mg. After correcting for protein binding, AUC0–24 of unbound drug was calculated for each regimen, and AUC0–24/MIC ratios were calculated using MIC data from both in vitro methods. Differences in MICs between methods were determined for each agent using the paired t-test (after logarithmic transformation of MICs) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Differences in AUC0–24/MIC ratios were also determined using the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The level of significance for all analyses was p < 0.05. RESULTS: Broth microdilution and E-test MICs were within ± 1 log2 dilution for 94%, 93%, 61%, and 35% of the isolates for levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gemifloxacin, respectively. Broth microdilution MICs were significantly lower than E-test MICs for all 4 agents (p < 0.001). However, a categorical change in susceptibility was seen for only 1 isolate with gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin (intermediate by broth microdilution, resistant by E-test). AUC0–24/MIC ratios were significantly higher for each regimen when MICs were determined by broth microdilution compared with E-test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference in the activity of the newer fluoroquinolones against S. pneumoniae when MICs are determined by broth microdilution and E-test. When evaluating fluoroquinolone activity and pharmacodynamics against this organism, clinicians must be aware that MIC testing methodology may have a significant impact on the results.