Objective To investigate the correlation between subjective assessment from clinician and patients and the objective measurement from active posterior rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. Methods Clinician and patients' assessment of nasal patency was achieved by visual analogue scale （VAS）. Objective measurement included active posterior rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. The mean of clinician's assessment and patients' VAS was compared by using paired-samples t-test. The correlation between unilateral nasal airflow resistance and unilateral nasal airway volume, unilateral minimal cross section area, and also subjective assessment and objective measurement of nasal patency were analysed by using Spearman correlation analysis in total patients. Results In total of 316 patients, pre-decongestion and post-decongestion, unilateral nasal airflow resistance and unilateral nasal airway volume, unilateral minimal cross section area had significant negative correlation respectively （P = 0. 000）. The mean of clinician's assessment and patients' VAS bad significant difference （ P < 0. 001 ） before and after decongestion. Clinician's assessment had significant positive correlation with patients' VAS, nasal airflow resistance, and significant negative correlation with nasal airway volume, minimal cross section area of nasal cavity before and after decongestion （P = 0. 000 ）. Patients' VAS had significant positive correlation with nasal airflow resistance, and significant negative correlation with nasal airway volume, minimal cross section area of nasal cavity before and after decongestion（P = 0. 000）. The correlation coefficients from clinician's assessment and objective measurements were greater than those from patients VAS and objective measurements. Conclusions The parameter of active posterior rhinomanometry had significant negative correlation with the parameters of acoustic rhinometry. Clinician assessment of nasal patency had significant positive correlation with patients' VAS; both of them had significant correlation with the parameters of rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. Clinician's assessment was more objective and reliable to the parameters of objective measurement than patients' VAS.