Objective: Brief examiner-administered and computer-administered batteries for evaluating cognitive deficits have become increasingly common. Both the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) have garnered support based on the literature. Despite their popularity, a direct comparison of the cognitive abilities measured by RBANS and ANAM has not occurred. This study examined the constructs measured by these tests, as well as their relationships to traditional neuropsychological tests. Method: Participants included veterans and civilians with traumatic brain injury (n = 147) and healthy controls (n = 73). All participants completed extensive neuropsychological testing, including RBANS and ANAM. Iterative principal axis factor analysis and oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalization was conducted using RBANS subtest and ANAM throughput raw scores. Pearson correlations were calculated between factor scores and scores from traditional neuropsychological tests. Results: Analyses yielded a 3-factor solution accounting for 51.25% of the variance. Factors were named as follows: Factor 1 = ANAM/RBANS Attention and Processing Speed; Factor 2 = RBANS Verbal Learning and Memory; and Factor 3 = RBANS Visual Spatial/Nonverbal Memory. Statistically significant correlations (ranging from r = .153 to .775) were seen between factor scores and neuropsychological tests of similar constructs. Conclusion(s): Findings suggest that RBANS and ANAM overlap in measuring attention and processing speed skills, but not in other cognitive domains. While ANAM and RBANS are supported as brief cognitive assessment tools, clinicians should be aware of limitations in their ability to evaluate broad cognitive domains and augment assessments using other tests.