BACKGROUND: The Favre system operates with airflow in a semi-closed circuit to transmit pressure. We aimed to evaluate the Favre system in comparison with other commonly used manometry systems. METHODS: The Favre, Arndorfer, Arhan, and Synectics systems were evaluated in vitro and in 14 volunteers. RESULTS: In vitro testing showed no relevant differences for latency, precision, or retest stability. In vivo, maximum resting pressure differed among all probes (P < 0.01) except for Arhan versus Arndorfer (NS). Maximum squeeze pressures differed among all probes (P < 0.01). Decrease of resting pressure during rectoanal inhibitory reflex was similar for Favre versus Arndorfer and Arhan versus Synectics (NS). Retest stability was higher with Favre than with Arndorfer (P < 0.05) and Synectics (P < 0.05) with regard to maximum resting pressure; it was higher with Favre than with Arhan (P < 0.01) and Arndorfer (P < 0.05) with regard to maximum squeeze pressure. Favre caused less discomfort than Synectics (P < 0.05) or Arndorfer (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The Favre probe is an excellent and cost-efficient system for routine anorectal manometry.