Mechanical components are frequently subjected to severe cyclic pressure and/or temperature loadings. Therefore, numerical and analytical low cycle fatigue methods become widely used in the field of engineering to estimate the design fatigue lives. The primary aim of this work is to evaluate the accuracy of the most commonly used numerical and analytical low cycle fatigue life methods for specimens made of 316 LN austenitic stainless steel and subjected to fully reversed uniaxial tension–compression loading, in the room temperature condition. It was found that both maximum shear strain and Brown–Miller criterions result in a very conservative estimation for uniaxially loaded specimens. However, maximum shear strain criteria provide better results compared to the Brown–Miller criteria. The total strain energy density approach was also used, and both the Masing and non-Masing analysis were adopted in this study. It is found that the Masing model provides conservative fatigue lives, and non-Masing model results in a more realistic fatigue life prediction for 316 LN stainless steel for both low and high strain amplitudes. The fatigue design curves obtained from the commonly used analytical low cycle fatigue equations were reexamined for 316 LN SS. The obtained design curves from Langer model and its modified versions are nonconservative for this type of material. Consequently, the authors suggest new optimized parameters to fit the given test data. The obtained curve using the currently suggested parameters is in better agreement with the experimental data for 316 LN SS.