Due to the rapid development of OCT-based angiography technique, we realize that it would be hard to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various existing algorithms based on currently existing literature. Although different algorithms have been demonstrated with promising results in the literature, it is clearly difficult to compare their relative strengths and weakness due to various factors that may impact results, performance, and image quality. Those factors include, but may not be limited to: (1) the capabilities and specifications of hardware imaging platform that each study employed, e.g., speed, sensitivity, SS-OCT versus SD-OCT (sensitivity rolloff), wavelength, system phase stability, etc; (2) patient selection for the study, e.g., normal and various diseased eyes; (3) besides the flow-contrast algorithm, there may involve various postprocessing steps, such as segmentation, 2-D or 3-D filtering, motion correction, etc., to arrive at the final results; and (4) there may involve some preprocessing steps before the flow-contrast algorithm is used to contrast the blood flow, such as motion correction prior to interframe analysis. So far, there has been no systematic study to be able to objectively compare the merits of different OCT angiographic algorithms without unintended biases that may have been caused by the factors listed above. Hence, it is critical to be able to evaluate the relative performance and results of different OCT angiographic algorithms without being restricted by any of these limitations.