<p>With the introduction of machine learning in high stakes decision-making, ensuring algorithmic fairness has become an increasingly important task. To this end, many mathematical definitions of fairness have been proposed, and a variety of optimisation techniques have been developed, all designed to maximise a given notion of fairness. Fair solutions, however, tend to rely on the quality of training data, and can be highly sensitive to noise. Recent studies have shown that robustness of many such fairness strategies—i.e., their ability to perform well on unseen data—is not a given and requires careful consideration. To address this challenge, we propose <i>robustness ratio</i>, which is a novel criterion to measure the robustness of diverse fairness optimisation strategies. We support our analysis with multiple extensive experiments on five benchmark fairness data sets, using three prominent fairness strategies, in view of four of the most popular definitions of fairness. Our experiments show that while fairness methods that rely on threshold optimisation (post-processing) mostly outperform other techniques, they are acutely sensitive to noise. This is in contrast to two other methods—correlation remover (pre-processing) and exponentiated gradient descent (in-processing)—which become increasingly fairer as the random noise injected into the data becomes larger. Our findings offer a comprehensive overview of fairness strategies that proves invaluable when tasked with choosing the most suitable method for the task at hand. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to quantitatively evaluate the robustness of fairness optimisation strategies.</p>