Various techniques were used to compare the effectiveness of a commercially available wax inhibitor (WIA) to a newly developed wax inhibitor (WIEP) using a highly waxy Wyoming crude oil-which causes plugging within wellbores and pipelines. The two additives were compared using centrifuge experiments, cold finger tests, and the precipitation and redissolution waxphaltene determinator (WD) method. Centrifuge tube experiments, and cold finger tests, showed that the newly developed WIEP additive was significantly more effective at reducing the amount of ambient temperature wax crystallites in the crude oil, as well as reducing the amount of wax deposited on a cold finger. WD analysis was performed on model compounds to differentiate between shorter and longer n-paraffins. Whole crude oils, ambient temperature waxes centrifuged from the oils, and waxes from cold finger deposits were also analyzed by the WD method. Taken together with high temperature gas chromatography, the WD profile of whole crude oils readily distinguishes shorter n-paraffins from the more problematic longer n-paraffins that are prone to crystallization at ambient temperature. For treated Elliott crude oil, the WD Analysis profile showed a consistent decrease in wax with WIA concentration to give a linear correlation; however, a less consistent change was observed with the WIEP additive. By applying the WD analysis to the additives themselves, it was elucidated that the WIEP additive contained components that were highly polar and/or more associated. This observation suggests that components in the WIEP additive may self-precipitate to a greater degree than becoming incorporated with the waxes during the WD separation. This effect caused the WIEP to appear as though it is not as effective as the WIA additive in the WD analysis.