Abstract: Three liquefaction prediction methods, namely in-situ standard penetration test (SPT), shear wave velocity test (V_s), and cone penetration test (CPT), are gradually being incorporated into the codes. However, as the general relationship among the three is not fully understood, implementation difficulties are encountered in engineering practice. This paper focuses on the three liquefaction prediction methods of SPT, V_s and CPT in the recently revised "General Rule for Performance-based Seismic Design of Buildings" in China (General code) and in the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) of the United States, taking the liquefaction critical curve as the core quantity, and presents explicit comparison results clearly. A large amount of engineering investigation data worldwide are adopted to construct the conversion relationship among the three basic test indicators. The compatibility and differences of the three liquefaction discrimination methods in the General Rule and in the NCEER are studied on the same platform. The general relationship among the three methods under different seismic intensities and different burial depths is analyzed. Scientific and reasonable countermeasures for engineering application have been proposed. Studies show that under different seismic intensities and sand layer burial depths, the three liquefaction prediction methods are compatible, but there are obvious differences and regularities in the average sense. The liquefaction prediction methods adopted in actual engineering should be determined according to the seismic fortification category of the engineering. The research results of this paper can deepen the understanding of the interrelationship among liquefaction prediction methods under different in-situ tests, and provide direct support for the application and development of liquefaction disaster prevention technology in China.