The screening for and diagnosis of bacteriological infections often involves the collection and transportation of swab samples. The Copan ESwab was compared with the dry cotton Copan swab for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening (n = 200 paired samples) and with the Amies agar gel swab (Copan) for the sampling of burn and orthopaedic wounds (n = 203 paired samples) in terms of Gram staining and bacterial recovery. Gram stains performed with ESwab liquid showed significantly more Gram-negative rods, streptococci, Gram-positive cocci, Gram-positive rods, polymorphonuclear cells, lymphocytes and red blood cells than Gram stains from dry swabs. Bacterial recovery was significantly higher with ESwab (p < 0.01, for both MRSA screening and wounds, quantitative/semi-quantitative method). This lead to a slightly higher detection rate of MRSA (128 vs. 124 MRSA-positive ESwabs and dry swabs, respectively, p = 0.50) and a higher detection rate of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. (44 isolates with ESwab vs. 29 with Amies gel swab, p = 0.001) and Enterococcus spp. (15 isolates with ESwab vs. 7 isolates with Amies gel swab, p = 0.005) with ESwab (quantitative method). We confirmed that ESwab has a high performance for Gram stains and a higher bacterial recovery than dry and Amies gel swabs when using clinical samples for MRSA screening and wound sampling.