This study conducts a structured comparative analysis of five climate-comfort models—Givoni’s chart, Olgyay’s chart, ASHRAE 55, Mahoney’s tables, and Szokolay’s model—within the context of architectural design. Each model is evaluated across five criteria: Ease of Integration, Relevance and Accuracy, HVAC Support, Passive Support, and Standards Compliance. The study highlights the diversity of approaches: while ASHRAE 55 provides a prescriptive framework for comfort compliance in mechanically conditioned environments, the bioclimatic charts and tables emphasize passive strategies such as natural ventilation, shading, and thermal mass. Findings show that the bioclimatic tools are particularly suited for early-stage design decisions, especially in residential and low-energy buildings, whereas ASHRAE 55 is more appropriate for later-stage compliance and system sizing in commercial applications. The research underscores the importance of hybrid design workflows, where passive guidance from psychrometric tools is complemented by formal compliance tools to optimize both comfort and energy performance. The analysis supports more integrated, climate-responsive architectural practices through informed model selection and application.