We present data for the comparison of sensitivity, contribution to bandwidth, reproducibility, and linearity of one special purpose and two universal low dead volume detectors for LC. We also compare peak shape, temperature sensitivity, and flow sensitivity of these three detectors. The special purpose UV absorption detector is typically a hundred times more sensitive than the universal heat of adsorption or refractive index detectors. It has an extrapolated linear dynamic range of 3200 to 1 as compared to 3000 to 1 for the refractive index detector and 200 to 1 for the heat of adsorption detector, and it is not plagued with such nuisance factors as unfamiliar peak shape, temperature sensitivity, or extreme flow sensitivity. The UV absorption detector is clearly the best detector to use with compounds which absorb in the UV region. For other compounds we find the performance of the heat of adsorption and refractive index detectors comparable in many respects, and a choice between these two detectors will depend on speed of analysis as well as the type of compounds to be detected.