Abstract Objectives To determine the test-retest reproducibility and observer variability of CMR-derived LA function, using (i) LA strain (LAS) and strain rate (LASR), and (ii) LA volumes (LAV) and emptying fraction (LAEF). Methods Sixty participants with and without cardiovascular disease (aortic stenosis (AS) (n = 16), type 2 diabetes (T2D) (n = 28), end-stage renal disease on haemodialysis (n = 10) and healthy volunteers (n = 6)) underwent two separate CMR scans 7–14 days apart. LAS and LASR, corresponding to LA reservoir, conduit and contractile booster-pump function, were assessed using Feature Tracking software (QStrain v2.0). LAEF was calculated using the biplane area length method (QMass v8.1). Both were assessed using 4- and 2-chamber long-axis standard steady-state free precession cine images, and average values were calculated. Intra- and inter-observer variabilities were assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. Results The test-retest reproducibility was moderate to poor for all strain and strain rate parameters. Overall, strain and strain rate corresponding to reservoir phase (LAS_r, LASR_r) were the most reproducible, yielding the smallest coefficient of variance (CoV) (29.9% for LAS_r, 28.9% for LASR_r). The test-retest reproducibility for LAVs and LAEF was good: LAVmax CoV = 19.6% ICC = 0.89, LAVmin CoV = 27.0% ICC = 0.89 and total LAEF CoV = 15.6% ICC = 0.78. The inter- and intra-observer variabilities were good for all parameters except for conduit function. Conclusion The test-retest reproducibility of LA strain and strain rate assessment by CMR utilising Feature Tracking is moderate to poor across disease states, whereas LA volume and emptying fraction are more reproducible on CMR. Further improvements in LA strain quantification are needed before widespread clinical application. Key Points • LA strain and strain rate assessment using Feature Tracking on CMR has moderate to poor test-retest reproducibility across disease states. • The test-retest reproducibility for the biplane method of assessing LA function is better than strain assessment, with lower coefficient of variances and narrower limits of agreement on Bland-Altman plots. • Biplane LA volumetric measurement also has better intra- and inter-observer variability compared to strain assessment.