Objectives: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of Rapid screening methods like Quantitative Buffy Coat (QBC) and Antigen detection assay- pLDH (plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase) and HRP2 (Histidine rich protein 2) as compared to Peripheral smear examination in the rapid diagnosis of malaria. Methodology: A total of 137 samples were collected from clinically suspected cases of malaria during May2010 to July 2010 and malaria microscopy with Leishman stained smears, QBC and antigen detection test (pLDH and HRP2) was done. Sensitivity and specificity was calculated. Z test was applied to find out the difference between any two tests. Results: Of the total number of samples, 28 were positive; out of which 19 (13.87%) samples were positive by peripheral smear, 28 (20.44%) were positive by QBC and 21 (15.33%) by antigen detection tests. 19 were positive by both QBC and Peripheral smear and 109 were negative by both. QBC detected additional 09 positive cases which were negative on peripheral smear. 19 were positive by both Antigen test and peripheral smear, but antigen test detected 02 additional positive cases than peripheral smear. The QBC test was 100% sensitive, 92.37% specific with Positive Predictive Value of 67.86% and Negative Predictive Value of 100%.The antigen test was 84.21% sensitive, 95.76% specific with Positive Predictive Value of 76.19% and Negative Predictive Value of 97.47%. Out of 25 P. vivax positive cases, 16 were positive by peripheral smear and 16 were positive by Antigen test. Out of 05 positive cases of P.falciparum by Antigen test only 03 were positive by peripheral smear and 03 were positive by QBC. Among the peripheral smear negative cases, QBC could detect additional 09 cases out of 11 cases i.e. 81.81%. Conclusion: We did not find any significant difference between Peripheral smear and Quantitative buffy coat (QBC) and Peripheral smear and Antigen detection assay. Quantitative buffy coat is advantageous where work load is high, but is costly and gives false positive report. Antigen detection test is useful when microscopy is not available and immediate clinical diagnosis is required especially for P. falciparum cases, but gives false positive results even after treatment. Both the methods cannot replace microscopic method for identification of species and for determination of parasitaemia.