For detection of Helicobacter pylori, bacterial culture and histopathological examination are invasive in nature, whereas the fast urease test and urea breath test are non-invasive and indirect methods of detection. Stool antibody tests and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect genomic DNA are serological methods, which are preferred to invasive examinations. Our aim was to assess diagnostic specifity and sensitivity of stool antibody tests, with histopathological examination as the golden standard and to compare results with fast urease test findings. Biopsy samples of patients in the study were evaluated as examples of invasive methods, and also stool antibody screening were made (HpSA). When urease and HpSA test results were compared with histopathological results, sensitivity and specificity of urease test were 62.2% and 100%, respectively, and 68.9% and 100% for the HpSA test. General accuracy was 80% and 81%, respectively , positive predictive value 100% with each and negative predictive values 66.1% and 67.2% . The differences were not statistically significant, and the confidence intervals were approximately in the same range. Thus results obtained with biopsy urease and HpSA tests were generally similar to those obtained by histopathological examination. A review of national and international literature showed similar findings.