This work aims to present and compare methodologies used to estimate the corrosion rate from ILI inspection results once this integrity assessment is a procedure employed by pipeline operators. With this purpose the most appropriate methodologies for calculating the corrosion rate were analyzed and compared: Corrosion Rate Estimation based on the Principle of Local Corrosion Activity, Corrosion Rate Estimation based on the Parameter (a), Corrosion Rate Estimation from the Confidence Interval for Mean and Corrosion Rate Estimation from the Extreme Value Distribution. For each of these methods were employed simulated data and actual ILI inspection data, applying or not anomalies matching by table to identify and evaluate their advantages and limitations. The comparison has shown that the matching of the features is required only when the corrosion rate is estimated from the confidence interval methodology. The other methods can be applied to matched metal loss or all anomalies registered in ILI reported. Furthermore, it was observed that the estimated corrosion rate from the anomalies matching differ of calculated corrosion rate when matching of metal loss between ILI inspections is not done. Although this difference has been identified, it was observed an equivalence when the corrosion rates of each group were compared. In other words, there is a correspondence between the values estimated by each corrosion rate methodology when is used only the sample which represents the matched metal loss.The same occurs when the comparison is carried out between the corrosion rate values obtained only by methods where the defect mapping was not done.Moreover, a comparison between the main codes and publications for pipeline integrity management, as B31.8S ASME, API 1160 and Muhlbauer was done.