The objective of this study is to investigate the accuracy and computational efficiency of two commonly used formulations for performing the geometrically nonlinear thermal analysis of plane framed structures. The formulations considered are the followings: the Beam-Column formulation and the updated Lagrangian version of the finite element formulation that has been adopted in the commercially well-known software SAP2000. These two formulations are used to generate extensive numerical data for three plane frame configurations, which are then compared to evaluate the performance of the two formulations. The Beam-Column method is based on an Eulerian formulation that incorporates the effects of large joint displacements. In addition, local member force-deformation relationships are based on the Beam-Column approach that includes the axial strain, flexural bowing, and thermal strain. The other formulation, the SAP2000, is based on the updated Lagrangian finite element formulation. The results for nonlinear thermal responses were generated for three plane structures by these formulations. Then, the data were compared for accuracy of deflection responses and for computational efficiency of the Newton-Raphson iteration cycles required for the thermal analysis. The results of this study indicate that the Beam-Column method is quite efficient and powerful for the thermal analysis of plane frames since the method is based on the exact solution of the differential equations. In comparison to the SAP2000 software, the Beam-Column method requires fewer iteration cycles and fewer elements per natural member, even when the structures are subjected to significant curvature effects and to restrained support conditions. The accuracy of the SAP2000 generally depends on the number of steps and/or the number of elements per natural member (especially four or more elements per member may be needed when structure member encounters a significant curvature effect). Succinctly, the Beam-Column formulation requires considerably fewer elements per member, fewer iteration cycles, and less time for thermal analysis than the SAP2000 when the structures are subjected to significant bending effects.