Background Prior radioembolization, a simulation using Tc-99m-macroaggregated albumin as Y-90-microspheres surrogate is performed. Gamma scintigraphy images (planar, SPECT, or SPECT-CT) are acquired to evaluate intrahepatic Y-90-microspheres distribution and detect possible extrahepatic and lung shunting. These images may be used for pre-treatment dosimetry evaluation to calculate the Y-90 activity that would get an optimal tumor response while sparing healthy tissues. Several dosimetry methods are available, but there is still no consensus on the best methodology to calculate absorbed doses. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the impact of using different dosimetry approaches on the resulting Y-90-radioembolization pre-treatment absorbed dose evaluation based on Tc-99m-MAA images. Methods Absorbed doses within volumes of interest resulting from partition model (PM) and 3D voxel dosimetry methods (3D-VDM) (dose-point kernel convolution and local deposition method) were evaluated. Additionally, a new "Multi-tumor Partition Model" (MTPM) was developed. The differences among dosimetry approaches were evaluated in terms of mean absorbed dose and dose volume histograms within the volumes of interest. Results Differences in mean absorbed dose among dosimetry methods are higher in tumor volumes than in non-tumoral ones. The differences between MTPM and both 3D-VDM were substantially lower than those observed between PM and any 3D-VDM. A poor correlation and concordance were found between PM and the other studied dosimetry approaches. DVH obtained from either 3D-VDM are pretty similar in both healthy liver and individual tumors. Although no relevant global differences, in terms of absorbed dose in Gy, between both 3D-VDM were found, important voxel-by-voxel differences have been observed. Conclusions Significant differences among the studied dosimetry approaches for Y-90-radioembolization treatments exist. Differences do not yield a substantial impact in treatment planning for healthy tissue but they do for tumoral liver. An individual segmentation and evaluation of the tumors is essential. In patients with multiple tumors, the application of PM is not optimal and the 3D-VDM or the new MTPM are suggested instead. If a 3D-VDM method is not available, MTPM is the best option. Furthermore, both 3D-VDM approaches may be indistinctly used.