This elution difference can account for the Ϫ1 C T trend in Fig. 1A and B. There was no significant difference between the EZ1 and easyMAG extraction methods using either thermocycler (Fig. 1C ). There was also no significant difference by thermocycler when all three extraction methods were compared (Fig. 1D ). The limits of detection for the 7500 Fast and RGQ systems correlate to C T values of 25.36 (standard deviation [SD] ϭ 1.21) and 26.01 (SD ϭ 0.40), respectively (data not shown). Although the limit of detection for each extraction system is not reported here, data are available for these systems for other viruses and microbes (9) (10) (11) (12) .
PCR efficiency and precision on the 7500 Fast system were assessed on a single positive patient specimen tested neat and at 1:10 and 1:100 dilutions in triplicate (Fig.  2 ). For all three extraction methods, PCR efficiency was determined by assessing the slopes of the observed C T values across dilutions. These slopes were statistically identical to the predicted slope based on dilution calculations and were statistically identical to each other. For precision, overall variation of the triplicates was low but increased per dilution. Two-way ANOVA comparisons revealed that the C T values of the KingFisher system were significantly lower than those of the EZ1 and easyMAG systems (both P Ͻ 0.05), likely for the same reason described above.
With the comparable analytical performance of the extraction and PCR systems tested in this study, other factors, such as cost, instrument or reagent availability, supply chain stability, throughput, and hands-on time, can be considered when selecting SARS-CoV-2 testing methods. The KingFisher system can extract up to 94 samples per run (excluding controls) but takes ϳ90 min of technologist time to set up a full plate before the extraction run (ϳ30 min). The easyMAG and EZ1 have reduced setup times (ϳ30 min) but can extract only 22 and 12 patient samples per run (excluding controls), respectively, with run times of ϳ45 min. Another common supply that is currently available in limited quantity is transport media. This study only evaluated one type (UTM), and future work is needed to evaluate others (e.g., viral transport media, Amies, and saline). Taken together, our data support the interchangeability of these methods, enabling optimization of laboratory workflows and facilitating a nimble response to fluctuations in testing capacity and supply chains.