This study aimed to assess the nutritional status of 199 patients in a critical care setting using standard tools that included NRS, MNA, GLIM, SGA, PNI and MUST respectively. Data was collected over one year using a questionnaire administered at the bedside, adopting a judgmental sampling methodology. The analysis was conducted using SPSS and focused on evaluating the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the different nutritional assessment tools. All tools were compared with SGA. On assessing Body Mass Index, only 62 among the critically ill belonged to the normal category (18.5- 22.9 kg/m2) BMI. Results indicated that MNA and GLIM outperformed SGA in identifying malnutrition in the critically ill. MNA was reported to have the highest sensitivity (77.50%) and GLIM, the highest specificity (93.67%). NRS and PNI detected the lowest prevalence of malnutrition. MNA, GLIM, and PNI positively correlated with the length of ICU and hospital stay, while SGA had correlation with length of hospital stay. Mortality odds were higher for at-risk or high-risk groups classified using SGA, MNA, GLIM or PNI. MNA had the highest odds ratio (OR = 6.858) and MUST had the lowest odds ratio (OR = 1.535) for mortality. It can be concluded that MNA and GLIM are more effective tools to assess malnutrition in critically ill patients with MNA having the highest sensitivity and GLIM the highest specificity respectively. The study highlighted a high prevalence of malnutrition and the importance of accurate assessment to plan nutrition support in critical care settings.