Agriculture is the single largest sector and dominating driving force for growth and development of Pakistan‟s economy. Its share in GDP is 24% and employs 48.4% of the total work force of the country. It also provides raw materials for the agro-based industries and adds sustainability to Pakistan‟s export earnings. At present the average yields of various crops are low as compared to their potential yields and also to those of the advanced countries. The research advancements made in the field of agriculture indicate that the available technologies have much potential, which is not being properly exploited by the farmers. The research studies indicate that lack of proper dissemination of agricultural technologies among the farmers is still of one of the major causes for their non-adoption by the farmers. For the effective dissemination of agricultural technologies among the farmers, many extension approaches have been implemented from time to time. At present three main approaches are working in the country: public sector extension approach (PSEA), participatory extension approach (PEA) and commodity specialized extension approach (CSEA) for the guidance and education of the farmers, but still the extension‟s role does not appear to be much effective. However, each approach has some strengths, which may be used by other approaches for the improvement of extension work. Keeping in view this situation, the present study was planned to analyze these three approaches in the context of technology dissemination and its utilization by the farmers. For this purpose the data were collected from 360 respondents taken from the farmers of the three selected approaches by selecting an equal sample of 120 respondents each, from 10 randomly selected villages of tehsil Chak Jhumra of Faisalabad district in which the three approaches are simultaneously in operation. A comparison of the three selected approaches was made against the selected parameters like sustainability, farmers‟ participation, women participation, linkages development, knowledge gain, technology utilization, diversification, competence of extension field staff (EFS), effectiveness of extension messages, effective use of extension methods, responsiveness to various categories of rural people, organization of target groups, responsiveness to national policies and goals and overall perception of the farmers regarding these approaches. The collected data were analysed by using frequency distributions, weighted scores, analysis of variance, standard variation and LSD values. The Chi-square was also used for computing relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of therespondents and some dependent variables like farmers‟ participation, knowledge gain and technology utilization. The results indicated that PSEA was a better approach than PEA and CSEA with regard to the introduction of sustainable agricultural practices among the farmers. PEA had provided more opportunities to the farmers for their participation in extension programme development than the PSEA and CSEA. PSEA and CSEA had absolutely provided no opportunity for women participation at any stage of extension programme development whereas the women were given opportunities for their participation in PEA. PSEA had developed more linkages with various categories of farmers and agricultural allied agencies than those of PEA and CSEA. PEA was the approach that had covered all the diversified areas whereas rest of the two approaches were not putting sufficient efforts in providing coverage. PEA was a better approach than the other two approaches (PSEA and CSEA). PSEA was ranked at the top with regard to the knowledge gain regarding crop production and protection practices by the farmers, whereas PEA and CSEA were rated as 2 nd and 3 rd respectively. As regards the technology utilization by the farmers PSEA, PEA and CSEA were rated 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respectively. PSEA got the highest score among the selected approaches with regard to competence of extension field staff. The extension messages were well prepared in PSEA than those of PEA and CSEA. PEA was responsive to more categories of rural people as compared to the other two approaches (PSEA and CSEA). The EFS of PSEA used the extension methods more effectively than those of PEA and CSEA. The EFS of PEA was more serious in organizing the target groups among the rural communities than the other two approaches (PSEA and CSEA). According to the overall perceptions of the farmers, the PEA was a better approach followed by the PSEA and CSEA.