Background : π1e presence of NRBC is normal for frrst several days in newbom. π1e presence of NRBC in the peripheral blood in adu1t is not associated with a specific single c1inical diagnosis, but in other situations the appearance of NRBC indicates disordered erythropoiesis. In many cases, NRBC in peripheral blood is an important marker of significant hematological and non-hematological diseases. NRBC should therefore be identified precisely Most automated hematology analyzers have a flagging system to indicate the presence of NRBC in a sample qua1itatively. πus makes it necessary to correct the WBC count by substrating the number of NRBC according to manual microscopy. But, manual microscopic examination has low sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibi1ity. Method Peripheral blood specimens anticoagulatεd with EDTA wεrε studiεd. 100 samples were analysed on XE-2100 and manual NRBC count. Result Manual microscopic reference NRBC counts of 10 patient specimens showed good correlation with XE-2100 (y= 1.2692x - 0.4722 ; r = 0.9354). But, the manual microscopic NRBC result counted 100 cells indicates low correlation (y=0.7787x + 7.6241 ; r = 0.8640). Performance for with-in day precison showed a mean coefficient of variation (CV) for the XE-2100 of = 5.4% (2.0-8.4%), with a mean CV for manual NRBC counts of 22.1 %. The between day precision using QC material (SF-CHECK), was 2.94% for low control 1.29% for normal control, and 1.63% for hlgh control. Conclusion : We conc1ude that thls automated method using XE-2100 was suitable for accurate NRBC counting in peripheral blood specimens with improved performance in terms of accuracy, reproducibi1ity, and sensitivity when compared to manual microscopic methods.