question: Various breathing and cough simulators have been used to model respiratory droplet dispersion and viral droplets, in particular for SARS-CoV-2 modeling. However, limited data are available comparing these cough simulations to physiological breathing and coughing. In this study, three different cough simulators (Teleflex Mucosal Atomization Device Nasal (MAD Nasal), a spray gun, and GloGerm(TM) MIST) that have been used in the literature were studied to assess their physiologic relevance. Droplet size, velocity, dispersion, and force generated by the simulators were measured. Droplet size was measured with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Slow-motion videography was used to 3D reconstruct and measure the velocity of each simulated cough. A force-sensitive resistor was used to measure the force of each simulated cough. The average size of droplets from each cough simulator was 176 to 220 µm. MAD Nasal, the spray gun, and GloGerm(TM) MIST traveled 0.38 m, 0.89 m, and 1.62 m respectively. The average velocities for the MAD Nasal, spray gun, and GloGerm(TM) MIST were 1.57 m/s, 2.60 m/s, and 9.27 m/s respectively, and all yielded a force of <0.5 Newtons. GloGerm(TM) MIST and the spray gun most closely resemble physiological coughs and breathing respectively. In conclusion, none of the simulators tested accurately modeled all physiologic characteristics (droplet size, 3-D dispersion velocity, and force) of a cough, while there were various strengths and weaknesses of each method. One should take this into account when performing simulations with these devices.