Background　The　performance　of　automatic　liver　segmentation　and　manual　sampling　MRI　strategies　needs　be　compared　to　determine　interchangeability.Objective　To　compare　automatic　liver　segmentation　and　manual　sampling　strategies　(manual　whole　liver　segmentation　and　standardized　manual　region　of　interest)　for　performance　in　quantifying　liver　volume　and　MRI-proton　density　fat　fraction　(MRI-PDFF),　identifying　steatosis　grade,　and　time　burden.Methods　Fifty　patients　with　obesity　who　underwent　liver　biopsy　and　MRI　between　December　2017　and　November　2018　were　included.　Sampling　strategies　included　automatic　and　manual　whole　liver　segmentation　and　4　and　9　large　regions　of　interest.　Intraclass　correlation　coefficient　(ICC),　Bland-Altman,　linear　regression,　receiver　operating　characteristic　curve,　and　Pearson　correlation　analyses　were　performed.Results　Automatic　whole　liver　segmentation　liver　volume　and　manual　whole　liver　segmentation　liver　volume　showed　excellent　agreement　(ICC=0.97),　high　correlation　(R2=0.96),　and　low　bias　(3.7%,　95%　limits　of　agreement,　-4.8%,　12.2%)　in　liver　volume.　There　was　the　best　agreement　(ICC=0.99),　highest　correlation　(R2=1.00),　and　minimum　bias　(0.84%,　95%　limits　of　agreement,　-0.20%,　1.89%)　between　automated　whole　liver　segmentation　MRI-PDFF　and　manual　whole　liver　segmentation　MRI-PDFF.　There　was　no　difference　of　each　paired　comparison　of　receiver　operating　characteristic　curves　for　detecting　steatosis　(P=0.07-1.00).　The　minimum　time　burden　for　automatic　whole　liver　segmentation　was　0.32　s　(0.32-0.33　s).Conclusion　Automatic　measurement　has　similar　effects　to　manual　measurement　in　quantifying　liver　volume,　MRI-PDFF,　and　detecting　steatosis.　Time　burden　of　automatic　whole　liver　segmentation　is　minimal　among　all　sampling　strategies.　Manual　measurement　can　be　replaced　by　automatic　measurement　to　improve　quantitative　efficiency.