Quantitative analysis using Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) is most commonly performed using pure element sensitivity factors. The accuracy of the technique can be quite good for materials such as stainless steels where many of the elements have adjacent atomic numbers and similar densities. However, in most other materials errors well over 100% of the accepted true value are commonplace. The reasons for this will be discussed and different methods for quantifying data will be compared for their effectiveness. Accuracy, defined as the difference between the accepted true value and the result of an analysis, with Auger electron spectroscopy has seen very slow improvements over the years. There have been relatively very few technical papers addressing this important subject. By contrast, highly accurate quantitative analysis with the electron probe micro analyzer (EPMA) developed very quickly to the point where accuracies in the range of a few percent on a relative basis are commonly reached. Programs for converting x-ray intensities to concentrations following the ZAF (where Z is atomic number correction, A the absorbance correction, and F the fluorescence correction) procedures are available both in the public domain as well as from all the manufacturers of x-ray spectroscopic equipment. For AES there are no commercially available programs beyond the sensitivity factor approach. This work evaluates the current matrix effect corrections approaches (Sekine, et al) to that using elemental sensitivity factors from measurements with compounds. Sensitivity factors for several experimentally collected stoichiometric carbides, silicides, phosphides and sulfides are compared with those calculated from pure element sensitivity factors using matrix effect corrections. The factor with the greatest uncertainty was found to be preferential ion sputtering which is not included in any of the corrections. Sekine, et al, Evaluation of Correction Accuracy of Several Schemes for AES Matrix Effect Corrections, Surface and Interface Analysis, Vol. 15, 466-472 (1990).