Beerkan infiltration runs could provide an incomplete description of infiltration with reference to either the near steady-state or the transient stages. In particular, the process could still be in the transient stage at the end of the run or some transient infiltration data might be loss. The Wu1 method and the BEST-steady algorithm can be applied to derive soil hydrodynamic parameters even under these circumstances. Therefore, a soil dataset could be developed using two different data analysis methods. The hypothesis that the Wu1 method and BEST-steady yield similar predictions of the soil parameters when they are applied to the same infiltration curve was tested in this investigation. For a sandy-loam soil, BEST-steady yielded higher saturated soil hydraulic conductivity, Ks, microscopic pore radius, λm, and depth of the wetting front at the end of the run, dwf, and lower macroscopic capillary length, λc, as compared with the Wu1 method. Two corresponding means differed by 1.2–1.4 times, depending on the variable, and the differences appeared overall from moderate to relatively appreciable, that is neither too high nor negligible in any circumstance, according to some literature suggestions. Two estimates of Ks were similar (difference by < 25%) when the gravity-driven vertical flow and the lateral capillary components represented the 71–89% of total infiltration. In conclusion, the two methods of data analysis do not generally yield the same predictions of soil hydrodynamic parameters when they are applied to the same infiltration curve. However, it seems possible to establish what are the conditions making the two methods similar.