Distance-based methods are popular for reconstructing evolutionary trees of protein sequences, mainly because of their speed and generality. A number of variants of the classical neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm have been proposed, as well as a number of methods to estimate protein distances. We here present a large-scale assessment of performance in reconstructing the correct tree topology for the most popular algorithms. The programs BIONJ, FastME, Weighbor, and standard NJ were run using 12 distance estimators, producing 48 tree-building/distance estimation method combinations. These were evaluated on a test set based on real trees taken from 100 Pfam families. Each tree was used to generate multiple sequence alignments with the ROSE program using three evolutionary models. The accuracy of each method was analyzed as a function of both sequence divergence and location in the tree. We found that BIONJ produced the overall best results, although the average accuracy differed little between the tree-building methods (normally less than 1%). A noticeable trend was that FastME performed poorer than the rest on long branches. Weighbor was several orders of magnitude slower than the other programs. Larger differences were observed when using different distance estimators. Protein-adapted Jukes-Cantor and Kimura distance correction produced clearly poorer results than the other methods, even worse than uncorrected distances. We also assessed the recently developed Scoredist measure, which performed equally well as more complex methods.