At present，the formula for discriminating seismic liquefaction in foreign countries is mainly based on the simplified method proposed by Seed and Idriss，which compares the relationship between cyclic stress ratio（CSR）and cyclic resistance ratio（CRR）to determine whether liquefaction is possible. Historical seismic liquefaction data of in-situ tests are mostly utilized for fitting in the calculation of CRR，which makes the fitting formula of different scholars quite different. In view of the above differences，the in-situ test data of a foreign port project are selected in this paper，and a comparative analysis is conducted between the liquefaction discrimination method recommended by the US National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research（NCEER）and the discrimination method of Boulanger and Idriss. The following conclusions are drawn：1）The standard penetration test（SPT）reveals that the two methods have little difference in safety factors. The results of the cone penetration test（CPT）indicate that the method of Boulanger and Idriss is conservative. 2）The NCEER method has high reliability for predicting seismic liquefaction，while the method of Boulanger and Idriss has strong engineering adaptability. 3）In the design of relevant foreign projects，two or more methods should be used for calculation and mutual verification.