Basic numerical processing has been regularly assessed using numerical nonsymbolic and symbolic comparison tasks. It has been assumed that these tasks index similar underlying processes. However, the evidence concerning the reliability and convergent validity across different versions of these tasks is inconclusive. We explored the reliability and convergent validity between two numerical comparison tasks (nonsymbolic vs. symbolic) in school-aged children. The relations between performance in both tasks and mental arithmetic were described and a developmental trajectories' analysis was also conducted. The influence of verbal and visuospatial working memory processes and age was controlled for in the analyses. Results show significant reliability (p < .001) between Block 1 and 2 for nonsymbolic task (global adjusted RT (adjRT): r = .78, global efficiency measures (EMs): r = .74) and, for symbolic task (adjRT: r = .86, EMs: r = .86). Also, significant convergent validity between tasks (p < .001) for both adjRT (r = .71) and EMs (r = .70) were found after controlling for working memory and age. Finally, it was found the relationship between nonsymbolic and symbolic efficiencies varies across the sample's age range. Overall, these findings suggest both tasks index the same underlying cognitive architecture and are appropriate to explore the Approximate Number System (ANS) characteristics. The evidence supports the central role of ANS in arithmetic efficiency and suggests there are differences across the age range assessed, concerning the extent to which efficiency in nonsymbolic and symbolic tasks reflects ANS acuity.