End-of-season plant mapping provides information regarding the growth and development of the cotton crop during the entire growing season. It also provides for large quantities of data which can be cumbersome to summarize and difficult to interpret. Two interactive computer software programs, COTMAP (Mississippi State University) and PMAP (Texas Agricultural Experiment Station), have been developed to summarize the amassed map data. COTMAP is described as a plant mapping technique which assists with the collection calculation, and analysis of plant structure, boll distribution and boll retention variables of cotton. PMAP provides for input, analysis, and interpretation of a large number of individual plant maps. The output provides graphic comparisons of two different treatments and can provide up to 26 different formats. PMAP's summary information is displayed graphically to facilitate data analysis and interpretation. PMAP also provides the Means for examining the dollar value of fruiting branches based on actual measured lint yields and with some additional computer manipulation can provide dollar values for all fruiting positions. To illustrate differences in PMAP and COTMAP, the two programs were used to evaluate mapping data from a nitrogen rate study at the Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS. Based on the interpretation of this data, there were some limitations to PMAP which included 1) no allowance for monopodial fruiting, 2) data editing and viewing is slow without a math co-processor, and 3) only two treatment comparisons at one time. At this time PMAP appears to be more "user friendly", than the COTMAP program. COTMAP is capable of analyzing both one or two factor tests with randomized complete block or completely randomized designs. The summary file can be outputted in ASCII format and analyzed statistically using SAS or possibly other statistical analysis programs. Results from the N rate study were only used to illustrate the two programs, thus the comparisons of actual treatments were beyond the scope of this report. Both programs offer an excellent technique for summarizing end-of-season plant map data, but both have some limitations.