The Texam monocell pressuremeter is the most widely used type of pressuremeter in North America. It is considered to produce results comparable to those obtained with the Menard-type pressuremeter with respect to the pressuremeter modulus and the limit pressure. In order to verify this hypothesis, we have recently undertaken a test program in a controlled environment i.e. in polymer tubes of various stiffness and dimensions. The results of these tests have already been published [1]. Here they are repeated, completed and compared. These tubes allow a repeatable comparative analysis, but they do not allow representative comparisons of the measured strength (limit pressure) without being damaged. In order to compensate for this and to complete this comparative analysis, it was decided to undertake in situ tests. A total of 45 in situ tests were conducted in 3 boreholes spaced 2 to 3 m apart to a depth of 23 m in silty clay and clayey silt, using 3 equipment: a Menard pressuremeter, a Texam pressuremeter with metal rings, and a Texam with polymer rings. The following conclusions were drawn from these tests: The in-situ and controlled-environment tests present comparable results with respect to the pressuremeter modulus, i.e. the average moduli obtained with the Texam fitted with metal rings and Menard equipment are comparable, whereas the average moduli of the Texam fitted with polymer rings are nearly 20% lower than those of the Menard. The average limit pressures obtained in situ with the Texam pressuremeter are equivalent whatever the type of rings used (polymer or metal), and they are systematically lower (18% on average) than those of the Menard. These differences can be corrected. Correction factors have been proposed. Elements likely to explain these differences have been proposed.