This study aims to evaluate the added value of the two-generation reproductive toxicity study when a subchronic study (90-day repeated dose toxicity study) is available. The analysis includes a total of 47 reproductive toxic and 75 non-reproductive toxic substances, for which a two-generation study was available. For each of these compounds the outcomes of both study types were compared, in view of the question what the impact would have been both for the derived NOAEL and for classification regarding toxicity to fertility. On average, only a small difference (less than twofold) in overall NOAELs was found between the rat two-generation study and the rat subchronic study. For individual compounds the differences could be larger (up to around a factor of 10), but differences of this magnitude equally occur between NOAELs of subchronic studies (testing the same substance). The two generation study did have an impact on classification for toxicity to fertility: about one-third of the substances shown to be toxic to fertility in the two-generation study did not show any sign of that in the 90-day study. If the subchronic study did show toxicity to reproductive organs this often occurred at (much) higher doses than other toxic effects in the same study. Therefore, apart from including more fertility endpoints, a larger dose spacing (or more dose groups) in the subchronic study might increase its detection rate of fertility toxic substances. The consequences that these findings may have for risk assessment and risk management are discussed, especially in the context of REACH.