The risk factor, Lipoprotein(a), [(Lp(a)], has been measured in numerous clinical studies by a variety of immunochemical assay methods. It is becoming apparent that for many of these assays antibody specificity towards the apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] repetitive component [the kringle 4-type 2 repeats] and apo(a) size heterogeneity can significantly affect the accuracy of serum Lp(a) measurements. To address this issue, we investigated whether our current in house Lp(a) [Mercodia] assay showed such bias compared to a recently available assay [Apo-Tek], claiming to possess superior capability for isoform-independent measurement of Lp(a). Levels of Lipoprotein(a) by both Apo-Tek and Mercodia assays correlated inversely with apo(a) isoform sizes. No significant differences were observed between assays in ranges of Lp(a) concentration within each isoform group. The Mercodia assay exhibited similar isoform-independent behaviour to that of Apo-Tek for the quantitation of serum Lipoprotein(a). Essentially identical results were obtained by the two methods, suggesting that Mercodia assay's capture monoclonal antibody also (as is the case for Apo-Tek) does not recognize the kringle 4-type 2 repetitive domain of apo(a). Correlation of Lp(a) concentrations in patient specimens between Apo-Tek and Mercodia assays showed good agreement, although an overall higher degree of imprecision and non-linearity was noted for the Apo-Tek procedure. A change-over to the Apo-Tek assay would therefore not improve on our current assessment of risk contribution from Lp(a) for atherosclerotic vascular disease in individuals with measurable levels of circulating Lipoprotein(a).