OBJECTIVES: The SF-6D and the EQ-5D are two widely used questionnaires to generate utility scores. The objective of this study is to describe and compare utilities derived from EQ-5D and SF-6D in Huntington’s disease population. METHODS: We used data from Euro-HDB, a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in France, Italy, Poland and Germany. In several subpopulations, with different degrees of severity, we used paired-samples t-test to identify significant differences and calculated the Pearson’s  correlation between SF-6D and the EQ-5D utilities. RESULTS: The overall sample included 278 patients: 96 from France, 32 from Gemany, 103 from Italy and 47 from Poland. For the overall population, mean utility scores were significantly different (EQ-5D: 0.34 (sd=0.446); SF-6D: 0.62 (sd=0.135); p<0.0001). However values were strongly correlated (r = 0.79, p<0.001). This difference was also significant when considering subpopulations (as discriminated with score of clinical motor scale, and depression scale), with higher values for SF-6D. The difference between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores was higher in severe population than in moderate for most of the studied criteria (severe motor impairment: EQ-5D: 0.62; SF-6D: 0.69; moderate motor impairment: EQ-5D: 0.00; SF-6D: 0.51).  The SF-6D scores distribution was found to be approximately normal whereas the EQ-5D distribution was negatively skewed. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, EQ-5D tends to generate lower scores in all Huntington’s disease subpopulations. EQ-5D appears to be more sensitive than SF-6D. The choice of utility measure is likely to have a strong impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of interventions slowing the progression of Huntington’s disease.