OBJECTIVE: The optimal coronary MR angiography sequence has yet to be determined. We sought to quantitatively and qualitatively compare four coronary MR angiography sequences. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Free-breathing coronary MR angiography was performed in 12 patients using four imaging sequences (turbo field-echo, fast spin-echo, balanced fast field-echo, and spiral turbo field-echo). Quantitative comparisons, including signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, vessel diameter, and vessel sharpness, were performed using a semiautomated analysis tool. Accuracy for detection of hemodynamically significant disease (> 50%) was assessed in comparison with radiographic coronary angiography. RESULTS: Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were markedly increased using the spiral (25.7 +/- 5.7 and 15.2 +/- 3.9) and balanced fast field-echo (23.5 +/- 11.7 and 14.4 +/- 8.1) sequences compared with the turbo field-echo (12.5 +/- 2.7 and 8.3 +/- 2.6) sequence (p < 0.05). Vessel diameter was smaller with the spiral sequence (2.6 +/- 0.5 mm) than with the other techniques (turbo field-echo, 3.0 +/- 0.5 mm, p = 0.6; balanced fast field-echo, 3.1 +/- 0.5 mm, p < 0.01; fast spin-echo, 3.1 +/- 0.5 mm, p < 0.01). Vessel sharpness was highest with the balanced fast field-echo sequence (61.6% +/- 8.5% compared with turbo field-echo, 44.0% +/- 6.6%; spiral, 44.7% +/- 6.5%; fast spin-echo, 18.4% +/- 6.7%; p < 0.001). The overall accuracies of the sequences were similar (range, 74% for turbo field-echo, 79% for spiral). Scanning time for the fast spin-echo sequences was longest (10.5 +/- 0.6 min), and for the spiral acquisitions was shortest (5.2 +/- 0.3 min). CONCLUSION: Advantages in signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios, vessel sharpness, and the qualitative results appear to favor spiral and balanced fast field-echo coronary MR angiography sequences, although subjective accuracy for the detection of coronary artery disease was similar to that of other sequences.