In pile drivability analysis, selecting the appropriate soil input type is crucial for accurate predictions. Current methodologies, in the GRL WEAP for Pile Driving Analysis (PDA), offer four different soil input methods: simple static input, SPT-based input, CPT-based input, and API-based input. Despite the availability of these methods, there is a gap in understanding how SPT-based and CPT-based inputs compare in practical applications. This study addresses this gap by comparing SPT-based and CPT-based soil inputs in pile drivability analysis. The motivation behind this comparison stems from the need to enhance the accuracy and reliability of drivability predictions, which are critical for offshore piling operations. By evaluating these two methods, this study aims to identify which one provides a more reliable correlation with field performance. For the comparison, three offshore locations were selected where CPT and SPT tests were conducted. The analysis was conducted on piles with a diameter of 1200 mm and a penetration depth of 30 m. The findings indicate that CPT-based input demonstrates relative consistency with field performance calculations. This consistency can be attributed to CPT's ability to consider both frictional resistance and tip resistance, whereas SPT-based input predominantly accounts for the sampling tube wall circumference, primarily representing tip resistance. This study underscores the importance of selecting the appropriate soil input method for improving the accuracy of pile drivability predictions.