Objectives The primary objective of this research is to compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cell analysis using the classical method with automated counters. The secondary objective is to examine if there is a significant difference in the results obtained from these analyses. Study Design This research was conducted as a cross-sectional study. Participants and Methods The study included 15 outpatient and inpatient subjects of both genders. CSF was obtained via lumbar puncture or through an inserted catheter. Cell counting of the CSF was performed using the Fuchs-Rosenthal counting chamber and the Sysmex® XN-2000 automated counter. Statistical analysis of the results was conducted using MedCalc software. Results The results demonstrated a high positive correlation between the methods for leukocytes (Rho = 0.996) and erythrocytes (Rho = 0.991). Passing-Bablok regression analysis indicated the presence of constant and proportional differences between the methods. In contrast, BlandAltman analysis revealed a significant difference in the counts of leukocytes (P = 0.02) and erythrocytes (P = 0.01). All results, except for one, were within ±1.96 standard deviations. The median counts of leukocytes and erythrocytes were similar for both methods, with slight differences: leukocytes (Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber: 58, automated: 64) and erythrocytes (Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber: 990, automated: 1000). Conclusion The correlation between the two methods for counting leukocytes and erythrocytes is positive and very high. The introduction of automated cell counters, such as the Sysmex® XN-2000, 8. SUMMARY 17 has significantly reduced the time required for analysis and ensured greater standardization of results, which is crucial for timely diagnosis and initiation of treatment.