Several objective methods have in recent years been proposed for the evaluation of print inhomogeneity. In spite of the similarity in some segments, these methods differ from each other in their basic principles, complexity and consideration of the human visual system. Most of the studies about their performance are based on a small number of observers, which from the statistical perspective reduces their credibility. In addition, there is inconsistency among researchers on the preference model that could be used in a standardized manner for an objective print inhomogeneity assessment. The aim of our study was to examine four commonly used objective methods: ISO 13660, Integration Model, Improved Integration Model and M-Score method. The methods were evaluated based on the correlation between their results and visual grades which were acquired with the graphical rating scale. Eight grayscale samples were created by digital simulation and printed with a high-quality inkjet printer. The samples were visually evaluated in a perception laboratory in accordance with the ISO 3664 and ASTM E1808-96(2009) standards. The results show that the Improved Integration Model and M-Score method outperform the other two methods, especially for the samples with systematic irregularities.