Abstract: This report details a comparative study on three different methods for evaluating soil compaction in roadway construction: the Nuclear Moisture and Density Gauge, the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), and the Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD). The study's primary objectives were to review state specifications that have adopted performance-based testing methods and to conduct field tests comparing the three devices. The research was motivated by a growing industry shift away from density-based quality control toward performance-based specifications, which provide more direct insights into soil stiffness and load-bearing capacity. The review of specifications from states like Minnesota, Indiana, and Florida (FDOT) showed that these agencies have successfully integrated LWD and DCP testing, often in combination with density measurements, to improve quality assurance. Field testing was performed on two sites to compare the consistency and correlation between the three devices. The Nuclear Gauge, while efficient, was found to be limited by its reliance on lab-established Proctor tests and struggled with coarse-grained materials. The DCP, while providing valuable information on penetration resistance, was found to be labor-intensive, time consuming and prone to errors. In contrast, the LWD proved to be the most valuable tool for evaluating structural performance, as its stiffness measurements were found to be more indicative of a compacted layer's structural integrity than the density values from the Nuclear Gauge. The LWD also demonstrated the ability to distinctly differentiate between material types and provide consistent readings without relying on a Proctor curve. Based on these findings, the report recommends implementing the LWD as a complementary tool for projects with uniform soil conditions and as a standalone tool for projects with highly variable materials, such as embankments.