Introduction: Assessment of somatosensory function is recommended in orofacial pain investigations. Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) is a comprehensive method in which pressure pain threshold (PPT) measurement is included. PPT is usually obtained with a conventional Algometer Type II. A new computer-controlled and potentially more user-friendly algometer, the SENSEBox, could replace the conventional device provided that threshold values and other properties are similar between devices. Aim: Compare two algometers regarding absolute PPT, variability, time, and test-retest-reliability. Materials and methods: PPT was measured with both devices on thenar, masseter muscle and gingiva (upper premolar region) in twenty healthy adults. For each anatomic site and device, the mean value of three registrations was calculated. Paired t-test and Wilcoxon sign-rank test compared mean PPT, variability and time duration. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) analyzed test-retest reliability. Results: The SENSEBox showed overall lower PPTs (p<0.05). No significant differences in variability and time duration were found (p>0.05). Both devices showed very good to excellent test-retest-reliability (ICC 0.75–0.88) for thenar and masseter. On gingiva, Algometer Type II showed poor (ICC 0.38) and SENSEBox good reliability (ICC 0.43). Conclusion: The Algometer Type II and SENSEBox are not readily interchangeable in PPT assessment and QST in orofacial pain investigations.