Qualitative and quantitative description are key to solving the problem of heavy metal contamination on fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalysts. The loading efficiencies for different metals were compared for the two lab simulation methods of Multi-Cyclic Deactivation (MCD) and Advanced Catalyst Evaluation (ACE), and the microcatalytic performance of metal-contaminated catalysts was evaluated using an ACE Model C device. The results show that the MCD and ACE methods both obtain extremely high data accuracy, indicating that they can be used to ensure the parallel reliability of experimental results. The typical operating parameters for hydrothermal aging and metals loading can be adjusted to suit different metal types and content targets for either of these two simulation methods. Compared with an equilibrium catalyst from an industrial unit, the MCD method has the advantages of basic hydrothermal aging treatment with less metal loading efficiency, while the ACE method has an accurate metal amount and high loading efficiency for metal contamination, with a metal balance recovery rate above 99.5% at similar activation to the equilibrium catalyst. When used with a reasonable and effective metal pretreatment scheme, these two laboratory simulation methods can be used to evaluate new commercial catalysts and in fundamental experiments for the improvement of FCC catalysts for removal of metal contamination.