Background/Aim. Nasal obstruction is one of the most frequent disorders because of which patients see their Ear, Nose and Throath (ENT) doctors. Impaired nose breathing is a subjective symptom and it often does not coincide with clinical nose findings and functional tests of breathing function. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish if there is an accordance between a subjective nose breathing assessment and objective methods (rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry) in assessing nose breathing function in patients with diverse nasal septum deformity degrees, as well as to establish an accordance between these two objective methods. Methods. This study involved the total of 90 examinees divided into three groups. The group I consisted of examinees with nasal septum deformities less than 10º. The group II consisted of examinees with nasal septum deformities ranged from 10º to 15º. The group III involved examinees with nasal septum deformities over 15º. Each examinee had subjectively graded his/her nasal breathing on the side of the nose septum deformity from 0 to 10, and afterwards the whole noses. Rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry were done on the side of the nasal septum deformities and after that on the other side of the nose using the Interacoustics SRE 2000 device. Results. In the groups II and III there was a positive correlation between a subjective nose breathing assessment and rhinomanometric values both on the side of the nasal septum deformities and the nose as a whole, (p < 0.05), and no correlation between these traits in the group I (p > 0.05). In none of the examined groups correlation was found between a subjective nose breathing assessment and rhinometric values, both minimum cross-sectional area (MCA) and volume (VOL), both on the side of the nasal septum deformities and the nose as a whole (p > 0.05). There was no correlation found between rhinomanometric and rhinometric MCA and VOL values in either on the sides of nasal septum deformities or the nose as a whole in any of the examined groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion. Rhinomanometry significantly correlates with the subjective nose breathing assessment and it can be used as a reliable and objective indicator of nose breathing in everyday clinical practice. Acoustic rhinometry, on the other hand, which does not correlate with a subjective nose breathing assessment could have a greater significance in a scientific sense than in clinical applying.