There has been an increasing need for the sensitive and reproducible measurement of the outcome after hip surgery. Numerous hip scoring systems, varying in their complexity and disease specificity, have been designed to achieve a measure of outcome-some rely ultimately on the judgement of the surgeon, whereas others rely on the patients' perceptions. The Oxford hip score (OHS) has been found to be easier to administer and achieves a much higher follow-up rate than that of the Harris hip score (HHS). Unfortunately, with the availability of numerous scoring systems and the publication of data in these systems, it has been difficult to compare results. Our aim was to compare the more widely used HHS to the shorter OHS. We followed 200 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties (196 patients between January 1994 and May 1995) for an average of 5 years. All patients had a preoperative HHS recorded. At the 5-year review, assessment was made using OHS and the HHS. There were 115 hips that had full OHS and HHS available. The mean OHS was 19.1 (range 12-52, SD 9.5), and HHS was 89.4 (range 47-100, SD 13.3) at follow-up. The Spearman correlation showed good negative correlation between the 2 results (Spearman rank -0.712, P < .0001). The HHS vs OHS shows good correlation at 5 years. This is the first study to confirm that correlation persists for the OHS in the medium term. We include a classification of OHS of excellent (<19), good (19-26), fair (27-33), and poor (>33) outcomes which correlate well with the HHS. This study enables the case for the Oxford data with its easier analysis and higher compliance rate to be used more directly to compare studies that use the HHS.