A multimethod study was conducted to assess the differences between original (PG-OR) and counterfeit (PG-CF) ProGlider instruments regarding design, metallurgical features, and mechanical performance. Seventy PG-OR and PG-CF instruments (n = 35 per group) were evaluated regarding the number of spirals, helical angles, and measuring line position by stereomicroscopy, while blade symmetry, cross-section geometry, tip design, and surface were assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry were used to identify element ratio and phase transformation temperatures, while cyclic fatigue, torsional, and bending testing were employed to assess their mechanical performance. An unpaired t-test and nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare instruments at a significance level of 5%. Similarities were observed in the number of spirals, helical angles, blade symmetry, cross-sectional geometries, and nickel–titanium ratios. Measuring lines were more reliable in the original instrument, while differences were noted in the geometry of the tips (sharper tip for the original and rounded for the counterfeit) and surface finishing with PG-CF presenting more surface irregularities. PG-OR showed significantly more time to fracture (118 s), a higher angle of rotation (440°), and a lower maximum bending load (146.3 gf) (p < 0.05) than PG-CF (p < 0.05); however, maximum torque was similar for both instruments (0.4 N.cm) (p > 0.05). Although the tested instruments had a similar design, the original ProGlider showed superior mechanical behavior. The results of counterfeit ProGlider instruments were unreliable and can be considered unsafe for glide path procedures.