Research has consistently demonstrated the value and reliability of structured professional judgment tools for forensic psychologists conducting violence risk assessments. Knowing which tool to use in a given situation is key to maximizing their utility. The Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) for general violence, the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20 V2) for sexual violence, and the Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM) for stalking represent three instruments developed within the same conceptual family but designed for distinct domains of interpersonal harm. Each shares a common architecture: empirically grounded risk factors, structured administration procedures, summary risk ratings based on professional judgment, and an emphasis on risk management rather than prediction alone. Yet the instruments differ in important ways, including their evidence bases, their treatment of dynamic factors, and the populations for which they have been validated. For forensic psychologists who may encounter referral questions spanning multiple violence domains, understanding where each instrument is strong, where it is limited, and how they relate to one another is essential to defensible practice.