Background/Aims: Paper-based dietary records (Paper-DR) can be replaced by web-based dietary records (Web-DR) in both epidemiological studies and clinical practice to reduce the time and logistic burden. We aimed to compare Paper-DR versus Web-DR for the same individuals, matched for the same four days. Methods: We compared the matching of different food items (n=1103) from Paper-DR and Web-DR for energy and 48 nutrients among 16 pregnant volunteers. Paper-DR were coded into the Web-based version (referred to as Paper-Web-DR) independently by a research dietitian. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing mean rank differences among 49 parameters, recorded with Paper-Web-DR versus Web-DR, and Spearman’s rho were used to measure associations between nutrient intakes calculated from both DR methods. . Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to evaluate the level of agreement between the two dietary methods across the range of energy and nutrient intakes. Volunteers also completed an evaluation questionnaire of the user-acceptability of Paper-DR and Web-DR. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01548313). Results: A high correlation between Paper-DR and Web-DR was noted. There were statistically insignificant differences among all nutrients, except for free sugars (P<0.001), α-linolenic acid (P=0.041), folate (P=0.036) and pantothenic acid (P=0.023). Volunteers found the Paper-DR equally time-consuming as the Web-DR. The majority of the volunteers (75%) preferred the Web-DR. Conclusions: Paper-DR and Web-DR compared across a range of nutritional parameters, with few exceptions. The Web-DR was more convenient for the majority and has substantial logistic and cost advantages.