The cone pressuremeter test (CPT) is widely used to determine the in situ “state” of cohesionless soils. However, although the CPT is simple, inexpensive, and accurate the subsequent interpretation contains substantial uncertainties even with modern approaches. Self-bored pressuremeters (SBP) have the opposite attributes. Obtaining good SBP data is difficult in sands, but the subsequent evaluation can be rather precise. This paper compares estimates of the in situ state parameter, ψ, from CPT and SBP tests carried out in a uniform hydraulic fill. This case history is unusual in that (i) the fill was well controlled and uniform, (ii) comprehensive laboratory strength data exists, (iii) the CPT was calibrated for the fill in a large chamber, and (iv) good SBP data exist. These SBP and CPT tests are independently analyzed using a calibrated critical state model implemented in a large strain finite element code. The effects of ageing and fabric are considered. The resulting most probable in situ state parameters for the fill from the CPT are close to those derived from the SBP. Although not proof of accuracy (validation) of either test, since ground truth is not known, the results lend support to the adequacy of the interpretation methodology used for both. Further improvements are discussed.