The experiment was conducted at the research field of the Department of Soil Science, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University during the period 2010- 2011 with a view to assess the comparative performance of urea super granule (USG) and prilled urea (PU) and find out their optimum doses for broccoli production. The soil of the experimental field belongs to Salna series representing the Shallow Red Brown Terrace soil in Bangladesh soil classification system, which falls under the order Inceptisols in USDA Soil Taxonomy (Brammer, 1980; FAO, 1988). The soil of the study area is silty clay loam in texture with sand, silt and clay 17.8, 45.6 and 36.6%, respectively having bulk density 1.34 g cm-3, particle density 2.61 g cm-3, porosity 47.47% and field capacity 28.67%. The experiment consisted of seventeen treatments comprising 8 levels (80,100,120,140,160, 180, 200 and 220 kg N ha-1) of both USG and PU along with a control laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Besides these a blanket dose of P, K, S, Zn, B, and Mo were applied for all treatments @ 53 kg P, 83 kg K, 20 kg S, 2.0 kg Zn, 1 kg B and 0.8 kg Mo ha-1. Urea (USG and PU), TSP, MoP, gypsum, boric acid, zinc oxide and sodium molybdate were applied as a sources of N, P, K, S, B, Zn and Mo, respectively. The high yielding broccoli variety Premium crop (Brassica oleracea var. italica L.) was used as a test crop collected from Taki seed company, Japan. After proper land preparation, 25-day-old healthy broccoli seedlings were transplanted in lines on November 20, 2010 maintaining a row- to-row and plant-to-plant distance of 60 and 45 cm, respectively. Each plot was watered uniformly at every alternate day by watering can to bring the soil moisture at desired level up to stand establishment. Weeding was done twice just before at first and second top dressing. Earthing up was done to make a continuous line of ridges and furrows. After stand establishment furrow irrigation was given at an interval of 7 days up to harvesting. All the fertilizers with 50% MoP except PU and USG were applied as broadcast and incorporated during final land preparation. Prilled urea was top-dressed in two equal splits at 15 and 35 DAT as ring method around the plant by proper mixing with the soil. At 15 DAT USG was placed at 7-8 cm below the surface, 9-10 cm apart from plant base. The rest 50% MoP was top-dressed at 15 DAT followed by irrigation (depending on soil moisture status). The crop was harvested when the head or inflorescence was at commercial maturity, just started to swell but before opening the flower bud. The entire plants including the head and roots were harvested very carefully with the help of a shabol and data on total weight, root weight, leaf number, head weight and yield were recorded soon after harvesting. Before harvesting head diameter and after harvesting head length were measured by using a centimeter scale. The weight of individual head was taken including the stalk with three young leaves of the broccoli plant and the marketable portion of the plant was considered to the extent of about 15 cm from the top of the inflorescence along the stem according to Liu et al. (1993). Nitrogen uptake by the crop from soil was calculated by using the formula: Here, % Nitrogen = Average nitrogen content (%) of plant biomass; Y (kg ha-1) = Total dry matter production of plant biomass Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) was determined by the ratio of N in the crop at harvest compared to N applied by subtracting the uptake made by the control plot. The efficiency of applied fertilizer N may be quantified by the following equation as stated by Craswell and Godwin (1984): Apparent N recovery (NUE) = ((N uptake F – N uptake C)/ Fertilizer N applied) × 100 Where, F and C denote fertilized crop and unfertilized control, respectively. The collected data were compiled and tabulated in proper form and statistical analysis was done using the statistical package MSTATC. Computation and preparation of graphs were made using Microsoft Excel 2003 program. Economic evaluation of different treatment combinations was done through partial budgeting followed by marginal analysis of the cost-benefit as suggested by Perrin et al. (1979).