Since Terzaghi introduced his bearing capacity equation with the three N-factors in 1943, numerous bearing capacity methods have been proposed in the literature. However, the methods proposed by Terzaghi (T), Meyerhof (M), Hansen (H) and Vesic (V) are the most widely adopted. Also, while various design codes show a preference for Vesic’s N-factors, there is no consensus on depth factors. In this paper, the aforementioned four classical methods, as well as the methods included in EN1997-1:2004, prEN1997-3:2023 (draft standard), API, AASHTO, Geotechnical Engineering Office, IS6483:1981 and FHWA-SA-02-054 design standards are compared against finite elements. The focus is on the effectiveness of depth factors, which essentially account for errors associated with analytical modeling, that is, with the N-factors. The analysis reveals that for the case of effective stress analysis with ψ=φ (indicating soils adhering to the associated flow rule), IS6483:1981 provides the more satisfactory predictions (IS6483:1981 combines Vesic’s N-factors with Meyerhof’s depth factors). For the case of total stress analysis, Meyerhof’s method is superior to the other methods. Also for the case of effective stress analysis but for the ψ=0 case (indicating soils adhering to the non-associated flow rule), the AASHTO (and FHWA as well) approach is preferable; AASHTO uses Hansen’s d_q factor, while d_c=d_γ=1. Based on the aforementioned lack of consensus and on the fact that the rigidity of footings is an additional factor influencing bearing capacity, the author conducted extensive finite element analysis to identify suitable depth factors. The analysis clearly shows that, a single depth factor of the form (κ+λ∙D_f⁄B) can effectively replace the set of depth factors associated with the three bearing capacity equation terms, increasing accuracy, and simplifying the whole procedure. Based on the finite element analysis results and regression analysis, κ and λ values are proposed for both effective and total stress analysis, ψ=φ and 0, as well as for rigid and flexible footings for the four classical methods (T, M, H and V). Finally, the analysis also reveals that a strong relationship exists between the bearing capacity of rigid footings and the respective one of flexible footings. This is q_(u,Flexible)≈0.93q_(u,Rigid) for either effective stress analysis with ψ=φ or total stress analysis and q_(u,Flexible)≈q_(u,Rigid) for effective stress analysis with ψ=0.