Interlaminar failure, often known as delamination, is one of the dominant failure modes in fibre-reinforced composite laminates. It can substantially decrease the stiffness and strength of the laminates and cause catastrophic structural failures. Accurate predictive modelling and simulation approaches are essential to understanding the delamination failure mechanism. Furthermore, an effective modelling strategy of delamination is required when delamination modelling is integrated into a composite progressive failure model under general mixed-mode loading conditions, where both intralaminar and interlaminar failure modes present and interact with each other. The objective of the current work is to conduct a comparative study to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of several commonly used delamination modelling techniques with the finite element (FE) method. This effort aims to substantiate and consolidate the modelling methodologies and put forward recommendations for a more rational composite damage modelling practice. Composite delamination is dominated by Mode I and Mode II fracture in most cases. The double cantilever beam (DCB) test, the end notched flexure (ENF) test, and the mixed-mode bending (MMB) test are the commonly used tests to characterize a composite laminate delamination behaviour under Mode I, Mode II, and mixed-mode (I & II) fracture loading conditions, and to obtain the corresponding fracture toughness respectively. In this study, the three tests are modelled using different approaches: virtual crack closure technique (VCCT), cohesive zone modelling (CZM), and the extended finite element method (XFEM) to conduct a comparative study of different damage modelling techniques. For a composite damage model, different modelling parameters may have significant effects on the convergency, solution accuracy, and computational cost. Thus, a set of optimal values are studied empirically for each approach. An explicit FE procedure has certain advantages to solve highly nonlinear “non-smooth” quasi-static problems that are involved in complex contact interactions, large deformations, and damage due to material stiffness degradation. As such, both implicit and explicit FE schemes are also examined in this study for all three tests. The mechanical response and the progressive damage process obtained from the FE models are compared with coupon experimental results. Advantages and drawbacks for each technique are discussed from the aspects of modelling difficulty, mesh dependency, required parameters, rate of convergence, solution accuracy and efficiency, and application limitations. After the evaluation, useful guidance and recommendations are provided for each composite delamination modelling technique.