AbstractIn addition to standard laboratory testing of soil samples, on‐farm soil health monitoring methods are needed to help farmers assess progress in adopting new management practices. However, there is currently a lack of studies evaluating the suitability of semi‐quantitative on‐farm indicators to accurately rank target soil properties according to laboratory results. Therefore, this study assessed methods with potential for field use compared to common laboratory approaches for the determination of (i) soil organic carbon (SOC), (ii) carbon (C) fractions and (iii) microbial activity. The comparison allowed the evaluation of the validity, practicality and cost‐effectiveness of the approaches. For this purpose, three sites in north‐eastern Austria with contrasting soil textures (light, medium, heavy) and two different management systems (namely ‘pioneer’ and ‘standard’) were selected. Pioneer soils are managed long‐term according to principles of soil health using conservation agricultural practices while neighbouring fields under standard management represent conventional practices. Beyond texture and site differences, both laboratory and field‐adapted approaches revealed differences between the pioneer and standard systems. Overall, management‐specific differences were most pronounced in the light and heavy textured soil. Although the laboratory methods provided more accurate results with less variability, the field‐based approaches still identified trends in soil health parameters in the pioneer system. Our study can thus serve as a guide for the selection of suitable parameters and methods for assessing soil health in different areas of research and practical application.