AbstractA comparison of several incrementally complex methods for predicting wind turbine performance, aeroelastic behavior, and wakes is provided. Depending on a wind farm's design, wake interference can cause large power losses and increased turbulence levels within the farm. The goal is to employ modeling methods to reach an improved understanding of wake effects and to use this information to better optimize the layout of new wind farms. A critical decision faced by modelers is the fidelity of the model that is selected to perform simulations. The choice of model fidelity can affect the accuracy, but will also greatly impact the computational time and resource requirements for simulations. To help address this critical question, three modeling methods of varying fidelity have been developed side by side and are compared in this article. The models from low to high complexity are as follows: a blade element‐based method with a free‐vortex wake, an actuator disc‐based method, and a full rotor‐based method. Fluid/structure interfaces are developed for the aerodynamic modeling approaches that allow modeling of discrete blades and are then coupled with a multibody structural dynamics solver in order to perform an aeroelastic analysis. Similar methods have individually been tested by researchers, but we suggest that by developing a suite of models, they can be cross‐compared to grasp the subtleties of each method. The modeling methods are applied to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Phase VI rotor to predict the turbine aerodynamic and structural loads and then also the wind velocities in the wake. The full rotor method provides the most accurate predictions at the turbine and the use of adaptive mesh refinement to capture the wake to 20 radii downstream is proven particularly successful. Though the full rotor method is unmatched by the lower fidelity methods in stalled conditions and detailed prediction of the downstream wake, there are other less complex conditions where these methods perform as accurately as the full rotor method. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.