A comparative subgrade moduli study is carried out by static and dynamic deflection methods using lightweight deflectometer and conventional Benkelman beam deflectometer on low volume road.Field and laboratory tests are performed at 40 test locations on in-service road of 2 km stretch that contains three common types of cohesive soils(CH,CI,and CL).Pavement static and dynamic responses are estimated to ascertain static,backcalculated,and composite moduli of subgrade.The backcalculated and composite moduli of subgrade is validated at given moisture content using repeated triaxial test.Static moduli values are on lower side as compared with dynamic moduli values whereas the composite,and laboratory moduli of subgrade are approximately consistent with 2% to7% variation,respectively.Correlation analyses between static and dynamic moduli of different types of subgrade soils depict good correlation of determination(R2) varies between 0.75 and 0.91.Subsequently,validation of static moduli with California bearing ratio(CBR) related subgrade moduli shows moderate correlation of 0.67 to 0.74 whereas dynamic moduli shows good correlation of 0.74 to 0.93 for different types of soils,respectively.Therefore,the comparative analysis shows that lightweight deflectometer provides reliable subgrade moduli values,and it can be used as a quick subgrade strength evaluating tool for low volume roads. A comparative subgrade moduli study is carried out by static and dynamic deflection methods using lightweight deflectometer and conventional Benkelman beam deflectometer on low volume road. Field and laboratory tests are performed at 40 test locations on in-service road of 2 km stretch that contains three common types of cohesive soils (CH, CI, and CL). Partment static and dynamic responses are estimated to ascertain static, backcalculated, and composite moduli of subgrade. The backcalculated and composite moduli of subgrade is validated at given moisture content using repeated triaxial test. Static moduli values ​​are on lower side as compared with dynamic moduli values ​​while the composite, and laboratory moduli of subgrade are approximately consistent with 2% to 7% variation, respectively. Correlation analyzes between static and dynamic moduli of different types of subgrade soils depict good correlation of determination (R2) varies between 0.75 and 0.91. Subversion, validation of static moduli wit h California bearing ratio (CBR) related subgrade moduli shows moderate correlation of 0.67 to 0.74 while dynamic moduli shows good correlation of 0.74 to 0.93 for different types of soils, respectively. Herefore, the comparative analysis shows that the lightweight deflectometer provides reliable subgrade moduli values, and it can be used as a quick subgrade strength evaluating tool for low volume roads.