Height:diameter ratios are an important measure of stand stability. Because of the importance of height:diameter ratios for forest management, individual-tree growth models should correctly depict height:diameter ratios. In particular, (i) height:diameter ratios should not exceed that of very dense stands, (ii) height:diameter ratios should not fall below that of open-grown trees, (iii) height:diameter ratios should decrease with increasing spacing, (iv) height:diameter ratios for suppressed trees should be higher than ratios for dominant trees. We evaluated the prediction of height:diameter ratios by running four commonly used individual-tree growth models in central Europe: BWIN, Moses, Silva and Prognaus. They represent different subtypes of individual-tree growth models, namely models with and without an explicit growth potential and models that are either distance-dependent (spatial) or distance-independent (non-spatial). Note that none of these simulators predict height:diameter ratios directly. We began by building a generic simulator that contained the relevant equations for diameter increment, height increment, and crown size for each of the four simulators. The relevant measures of competition, site characteristics, and stand statistics were also coded. The advantage of this simulator was that it ensured that no additional constraint was being imposed on the growth equations, and that initial conditions were identical. We then simulated growth for a 15- and 30-year period for Austrian permanent research plots in Arnoldstein and in Litschau, which represent stands at different age-classes and densities. We also simulated growth of open-grown trees and compared the results to the literature. We found that the general pattern of height:diameter ratios was correctly predicted by all four individual-tree growth models, with height:diameter ratios above that of open-grown trees and below that of very dense stands. All models showed a decrease of height:diameter ratios with age and an increase with stand density. Also, the height:diameter ratios of dominant trees were always lower than that of mean trees. Although in some cases the observed and predicted height:diameter ratios matched well, there were cases where discrepancies between observed and predicted height:diameter ratios would be unacceptable for practical management predictions.