Much of what we know about malingering of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been learned from the performance of analog malingerers, typically first-year psychology students given credit for study participation. It is not clear, however, whether their performance is similar to that found in actual clinical settings. Indeed, past research suggests that analog malingerers may overexaggerate deficits relative to real-world malingerers, making them easier to identify in controlled studies. The purpose of the current study was, therefore, to compare the performance of analog malingers to post-secondary students strongly suspected of malingering ADHD on a self-report measure of ADHD symptoms. Their scores were, in turn, compared to those returned by students with genuine ADHD and clinical controls. Results demonstrated that, apart from analog subjects overexaggerating symptoms of hyperactivity, few differences exist between the scores returned by analog malingerers relative to clinical malingerers. While newly devised symptom validity measures show promise in identifying malingered ADHD, neither the analog nor the clinical malingers consistently failed these symptom validity scales. Furthermore, a good portion in both malingering groups failed to endorse high levels of ADHD symptoms in general. Clinical implications are discussed.