To assess agreement between two semi-automatic, three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) ventricular volumetry methods with different user interactions in patients with congenital heart disease. In 30 patients with congenital heart disease (median age 8 years, range 5 days–33 years; 20 men), dual-source, multi-section, electrocardiography-synchronized cardiac CT was obtained at the end-systolic (n = 22) and/or end-diastolic (n = 28) phase. Nineteen left ventricle end-systolic (LV ESV), 28 left ventricle end-diastolic (LV EDV), 22 right ventricle end-systolic (RV ESV), and 28 right ventricle end-diastolic volumes (RV EDV) were successfully calculated using two semi-automatic, 3D segmentation methods with different user interactions (high in method 1, low in method 2). The calculated ventricular volumes of the two methods were compared and correlated. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. LV ESV (35.95 ± 23.49 ml), LV EDV (88.76 ± 61.83 ml), and RV ESV (46.87 ± 47.39 ml) measured by method 2 were slightly but significantly smaller than those measured by method 1 (41.25 ± 26.94 ml, 92.20 ± 62.69 ml, 53.61 ± 50.08 ml for LV ESV, LV EDV, and RV ESV, respectively; P ≤ 0.02). In contrast, no statistically significant difference in RV EDV (122.57 ± 88.57 ml in method 1, 123.83 ± 89.89 ml in method 2; P = 0.36) was found between the two methods. All ventricular volumes showed very high correlation (R = 0.978, 0.993, 0.985, 0.997 for LV ESV, LV EDV, RV ESV, and RV EDV, respectively; P < 0.001) between the two methods. In patients with congenital heart disease, 3D CT ventricular volumetry shows good agreement and high correlation between the two methods, but method 2 tends to slightly underestimate LV ESV, LV EDV, and RV ESV.