Aim To compare the five‐item Korean version of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight (K‐FRAIL) questionnaire versus the 28‐item Kihon + 3 index (the 25‐item original Kihon checklist plus multimorbidity, sensory impairment, and Timed Up and Go test) in identifying prefrail or frail older adults. Methods We carried out a cross‐sectional analysis of 212 community‐dwelling older adults (mean age 76 years; 41% male) in PyeongChang County, Korea. We compared the C statistic, sensitivity and specificity of the K‐FRAIL questionnaire (range 0–5; cut‐point ≥1) versus the Kihon + 3 index (range 0–31; cut‐point ≥4) and the original Kihon checklist (range 0–25; cut‐point ≥4) in identifying prefrail or frail individuals according to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria. Results According to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, 150 individuals (70.8%) were prefrail or frail. The C statistic of the K‐FRAIL questionnaire in identifying prefrail or frail individuals was lower than that of the Kihon + 3 index (0.77 vs 0.85; P = 0.022) or that of the original Kihon checklist (0.77 vs 0.84; P = 0.046). However, at the a priori cut‐points, the K‐FRAIL questionnaire had sensitivity (0.79 vs 0.85; P = 0.095) and specificity (0.69 vs 0.69; P = 1.000) that were not significantly different from those of the Kihon + 3 index. However, the K‐FRAIL questionnaire was more sensitive (0.79 vs 0.69; P = 0.016), but less specific (0.69 vs 0.86, p = 0.018) than the original Kihon checklist. Conclusions For frailty screening in community‐dwelling older adults, the simple K‐FRAIL questionnaire might not be inferior to the current standard of the Kihon + 3 index, and it might be more sensitive and less specific than the original Kihon checklist. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; ••: ••–••.