Objective: Verbal fluency evaluation in bilingual speakers should include dual-language assessment to obtain a comprehensive profile of word retrieval abilities. This study is the first to compare classic semantic, action, emotional, and phonemic fluency in terms of the magnitude of their performance gaps between the dominant and nondominant language in unbalanced bilingual speakers. We also examined the quantitative relationship between language dominance and verbal fluency performance. Method: Twenty-six bilingual adults completed a comprehensive set of classic semantic ("animals," "vegetables"), action ("do"), emotional ("happy," "sad," "afraid"), and phonemic ("F," "A," "S") fluency tasks in their dominant language (English) and nondominant language (Spanish) in two sessions on separate days. Participants also completed subjective and objective measures of language proficiency. Results: All tasks yielded fewer correct responses in the nondominant language. The between-languages performance gap was the largest for "animals" and the smallest for emotional fluency. "Happy" yielded the most balanced performance among all semantic tasks and a positivity bias that was unaffected by language dominance. Finally, language dominance scores computed by a newly developed formula indicated relationships between self-rated proficiency and fluency performance. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary, normative data of classic semantic, action, emotional, and phonemic fluency that could be used to gauge unbalanced bilingual speakers' performance. Significant impacts of language dominance on "animals" demand caution in using this widely used classic semantic category in evaluating bilingual speakers' performance. The data also underscore the robustness of positivity biases in emotional fluency and the validity of using subjective measures to supplement neuropsychological assessment of fluency performance.