The study for delimitate the final pit of an open pit mine is a fundamental step for a mineral development. In that phase, it tries to define the quantity of overburden and ore that will be moved in the project, with the goal of maximizing the economic efficiency of the mineral company. Some time ago, this process of delimitating the mine pit was done by learning with the mistakes, but it was a slowly and imprecise process. In the current days, this job is done by the usage of software, where most of the well-known software in this area is based on the algorithm made by Lerchs & Grossmann in 1965. Nowadays the state of art for mining planning is based in the classic methodology where there is a pre-determined activities sequence: Determination of the final pit, generation of the pushbacks, block sequencing. This method determines the final pit by considering that all the blocks are mine at the same time. The evolution of the computers velocity and capacity has given new possibilities for this area. By that, the direct block sequencing is growing and becoming competitive at the market. This technique applies all the steps and solves the mining scheduling as one process, without the necessity of dividing it into independent steps. The given work has as goal the comparison of these two methods. For the comparison, it were used the software Micromine, which uses the Lerchs & Grossmann’s algorithm and the software Simsched, that appear with an optimal method for direct block sequencing. By the analysis of an unreal ore body, it was acquired an Net Present Value of 0.48% for the direct block sequencing method in relation of the Lerchs & Grossmann’s algorithm, therefore this results were more interesting in the economical view. Another observed factor, which leads in favor of the direct block sequencing method was that the fact that the exploitation of the ore body were made in a smaller time (19 years, against 25 years acquired with the L&G). It is important to emphasize that it were found an overburden movement of 62.12% bigger for the L&G than the direct block sequencing method.