Background Several guidelines recommend the use of different classifiers to determine the risk of recurrence (ROR) and treatment decisions in patients with HR+HER2- breast cancer. However, data are still lacking for their usefulness in Latin American (LA) patients. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative prognostic and predictive performance of different ROR classifiers in a real-world LA cohort.Methods The Molecular Profile of Breast Cancer Study (MPBCS) is an LA case-cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Stages I and II, clinically node-negative HR+HER2- patients (n = 340) who received adjuvant hormone therapy and/or chemotherapy, were analyzed. Time-dependent receiver-operator characteristic-area under the curve, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression (CPHR) models were used to compare the prognostic performance of several risk biomarkers. Multivariate CPHR with interaction models tested the predictive ability of selected risk classifiers.Results Within this cohort, transcriptomic-based classifiers such as the recurrence score (RS), EndoPredict (EP risk and EPClin), and PAM50-risk of recurrence scores (ROR-S and ROR-PC) presented better prognostic performances for node-negative patients (univariate C-index 0.61-0.68, adjusted C-index 0.77-0.80, adjusted hazard ratios [HR] between high and low risk: 4.06-9.97) than the traditional classifiers Ki67 and Nottingham Prognostic Index (univariate C-index 0.53-0.59, adjusted C-index 0.72-0.75, and adjusted HR 1.85-2.54). RS (and to some extent, EndoPredict) also showed predictive capacity for chemotherapy benefit in node-negative patients (interaction P = .0200 and .0510, respectively).Conclusion In summary, we could prove the clinical validity of most transcriptomic-based risk classifiers and their superiority over clinical and immunohistochemical-based methods in the heterogenous, real-world node-negative HR+HER2- MPBCS cohort.