Rock-Eval 6 is the latest version of the Rock-Eval product line, commercialized since 1996 by Vinci Technologies. This paper describes the methodology developed at IFP for reliable data acquisition and confirms the quality of geochemical parameters obtained by Rock-Eval 6. Data were obtained on 147 source rocks from various sedimentary basins, representing different organic matter types and maturity stages. Intrinsic correlations between two Rock-Eval 6 apparatuses showed excellent consistency and reproducibility for all Rock-Eval parameters. Complete recovery of total carbon (TC) by Rock-Eval 6 was confirmed by comparison with elemental analysis. The carbon partition (mineral vs. organic) determined by Rock-Eval 6 was verified by alternative techniques. TOC measured by Rock-Eval 6 was compared to values obtained by Leco, elemental analysis, and mass balance calculations. A good correlation was observed for the entire concentration range (0-90 wt%) when comparing Rock-Eval 6 and elemental analysis. However, comparison with Leco data showed larger deviations, though correlation factors remained good. For a subset of kerogen samples, preparative pyrolysis was performed to confirm the 83 wt% organic carbon content in the S2 peak for all rock types. MinC measured by Rock-Eval 6 was compared to values obtained by weight loss after HCl treatment, acidimetry, and mass balance calculations. A good correlation was observed for the entire concentration range (0-12 wt%) when comparing Rock-Eval 6 and elemental analysis. However, comparison with acidimetry data showed larger deviations, though correlation factors remained good. Comparison with weight loss data was poor. The paper concludes that Rock-Eval 6 provides excellent reliability for TOC and MinC measurements. It is now possible to obtain a carbon balance for a rock with a single measurement. Recommendations are proposed for reference samples and analytical methods to calibrate Rock-Eval 6 over a wide range of organic and mineral carbon. Consistency between S2 and Tmax measured by Rock-Eval 2 and Rock-Eval 6 for Types I and II source rocks was verified. A good correlation was obtained for S2, though values measured by Rock-Eval 2 were slightly higher. This was attributed to the carrier gas (nitrogen vs. helium). The difference ranged from 5 to 10% for most samples. For Tmax, data were more scattered, and values obtained by Rock-Eval 6 were generally higher than those obtained by Rock-Eval 2, with the difference increasing with Tmax. This was due to the thermocouple in Rock-Eval 2 being located in the oven wall, making Tmax determination dependent on setup and calibration. Special attention was given to temperature measurement in Rock-Eval 6, where the thermocouple was directly placed under the crucible, leading to more reliable data. Keywords: RockRock-Eval 6 is the latest version of the Rock-Eval product line, commercialized since 1996 by Vinci Technologies. This paper describes the methodology developed at IFP for reliable data acquisition and confirms the quality of geochemical parameters obtained by Rock-Eval 6. Data were obtained on 147 source rocks from various sedimentary basins, representing different organic matter types and maturity stages. Intrinsic correlations between two Rock-Eval 6 apparatuses showed excellent consistency and reproducibility for all Rock-Eval parameters. Complete recovery of total carbon (TC) by Rock-Eval 6 was confirmed by comparison with elemental analysis. The carbon partition (mineral vs. organic) determined by Rock-Eval 6 was verified by alternative techniques. TOC measured by Rock-Eval 6 was compared to values obtained by Leco, elemental analysis, and mass balance calculations. A good correlation was observed for the entire concentration range (0-90 wt%) when comparing Rock-Eval 6 and elemental analysis. However, comparison with Leco data showed larger deviations, though correlation factors remained good. For a subset of kerogen samples, preparative pyrolysis was performed to confirm the 83 wt% organic carbon content in the S2 peak for all rock types. MinC measured by Rock-Eval 6 was compared to values obtained by weight loss after HCl treatment, acidimetry, and mass balance calculations. A good correlation was observed for the entire concentration range (0-12 wt%) when comparing Rock-Eval 6 and elemental analysis. However, comparison with acidimetry data showed larger deviations, though correlation factors remained good. Comparison with weight loss data was poor. The paper concludes that Rock-Eval 6 provides excellent reliability for TOC and MinC measurements. It is now possible to obtain a carbon balance for a rock with a single measurement. Recommendations are proposed for reference samples and analytical methods to calibrate Rock-Eval 6 over a wide range of organic and mineral carbon. Consistency between S2 and Tmax measured by Rock-Eval 2 and Rock-Eval 6 for Types I and II source rocks was verified. A good correlation was obtained for S2, though values measured by Rock-Eval 2 were slightly higher. This was attributed to the carrier gas (nitrogen vs. helium). The difference ranged from 5 to 10% for most samples. For Tmax, data were more scattered, and values obtained by Rock-Eval 6 were generally higher than those obtained by Rock-Eval 2, with the difference increasing with Tmax. This was due to the thermocouple in Rock-Eval 2 being located in the oven wall, making Tmax determination dependent on setup and calibration. Special attention was given to temperature measurement in Rock-Eval 6, where the thermocouple was directly placed under the crucible, leading to more reliable data. Keywords: Rock