Differential abundance analysis (DAA) is a key component of microbiome studies. Although dozens of methods exist, there is currently no consensus on the preferred methods. While the correctness of results in DAA is an ambiguous concept and cannot be fully evaluated without setting the ground truth and employing simulated data, we argue that a well-performing method should be effective in producing highly reproducible results. We compared the performance of 14 DAA methods by employing datasets from 53 taxonomic profiling studies based on 16S rRNA gene or shotgun metagenomic sequencing. For each method, we examined how the results replicated between random partitions of each dataset and between datasets from separate studies. While certain methods showed good consistency, some widely used methods were observed to produce a substantial number of conf licting findings. Overall, when considering consistency together with sensitivity, the best performance was attained by analyzing relative abundances with a nonparametric method (Wilcoxon test or ordinal regression model) or linear regression/t-test. Moreover, a comparable performance was obtained by analyzing presence/absence of taxa with logistic regression.