question: Introduction Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. Methods We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR. Results During the study period, 1,127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%–87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%–98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%–81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%–99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%–96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%–93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. Conclusions The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.