Estimating corneal material parameters using tensile and inflation tests leads to significant discrepancies, preventing direct comparability. This study examines the causes of these differences, including variations in testing conditions, optimization strategies, and applied pressure or tension rates. Tensile tests, which apply uniaxial loading, yield higher stress–strain responses, while inflation tests capture biaxial behavior under physiological conditions, leading to inconsistencies in parameter estimation. The Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden (HGO) model, widely used for corneal biomechanics, defines the cornea’s isotropic stiffness through \({a}_{1}\) and \({a}_{2}\) while its anisotropic fiber behavior is governed by \({k}_{1}\) and \({k}_{2}\) , representing non-linear fiber stiffening. However, due to differences in mechanical response between test types, these parameters vary significantly, with \({k}_{2}\) values in inflation tests typically being much higher than in tensile tests. Our findings confirm that parameters obtained from both tests are not interchangeable, highlighting the need for a unified methodology that integrates both approaches to improve the accuracy and standardization of corneal biomechanical models.