Abstract: The collocated total ozone columns derived from three groups of instruments were analyzed at multiple surface stations in this study. The three groups of instruments are:1) Ground-based WOUDC (World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre) network instruments (including Brewer, Dobson, and Filter), space-borne TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrophotometer) and GOME (The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) between 1996 and 2003; 2) WOUDC instrument, space-borne OMI (ozone monitoring instrument) and SCIAMACHY (scanning imaging absorption spectrometer for atmospheric chartography) from 2004 to 2013; 3) ground-based SAOZ (Système D'Analyse par Observations Zénithales), space-borne OMI and SCIAMACHY during 2004-2013. The triple control method was adopted to calculate standard deviations of errors of different kinds of datasets and a comparison of their precisions was conducted. Results show that the precisions of TOMS V8 and GOME, which were 7.6±2.8 DU/46 (7.6±2.8 DU denoted the mean precision and its standard deviation of the ground sites analyzed; 46 represented the number of the sites) and 7.6±1.5 DU/46, respectively, agreed well during 1996-2003. The precision of TOMS V8 was better than that of TOMS V7 (8.5±3.0 DU/46) and the improvement was confirmed in this study. The precisions of OMI and SCIAMACHY, which were 6.6±1.4 DU/21 and 6.0±1.6 DU/21, respectively over WOUDC sites during 2004-2013, were close to each other. The precision of SAOZ was 8.4±3.6 DU/8. In terms of the WOUDC ground-based instruments, the average precision of Brewer was the best (7.9±3.3 DU/12), followed by that of Dobson (8.7±2.3 DU/19), and the worst was that of Filter (14.7±4.0 DU/15). The mean precision of the above three kinds of ground-based measurements (10.5±4.3 DU/46) was worse than that from the space-born instruments due to the application of the Filter-type instrument. With regard to only the ground-based instruments in China, their precisions were excellent at Waliguan (Brewer), Xianghe (Dobson), and Kunming (Dobson) sites, which were 7.8 DU, 6.7 DU, and 6.6 DU, respectively. Although there existed certain differences at Waliguan, Xianghe, and Kunming sites, the total ozone column obtained by the ground-based and space-borne instruments generally agreed well over these three sites.