Abstract A new measurement protocol, labeled Acoustic Mapping Velocimetry (AMV), has been successfully tested for in-situ estimation of bedload transport features in sandy beds. The AMV has proven efficient in using the dune-tracking method (DTM) for characterizing the bedform geometry and dynamics as well as for estimation of the rates of bedload transport. Given the novelty of the AMV protocol and its extensive reliance on multiple site-specific assumptions and user-defined parameters, a comparison of this emerging technique with other three non-intrusive DTM-based methods and analytical predictors is attempted in this paper. The comparison highlights that the AMV estimates are within 22% of the estimates with the other non-intrusive protocols and up to 98% different from analytical predictions. The observed differences are related to the possible sources of uncertainty in the AMV workflows and to the means to reduce their impact on the targeted estimations.