Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the extent and nature of Vocational Education and Training (VET) vis-a-vis other forms of training in three size categories of small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from two industry sectors. Design/methodology/approach: The longitudinal panel data employed in this paper are drawn from the Business Longitudinal Survey (BLS) conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) over the four financial years 1994-1995 to 1997-1998. Findings: The results indicate that less than half of the enterprises in the three-size categories provide apprenticeship training and traineeships--and in the case of micro- and small business, VET in any other field for that matter--or used any of the widely recognised providers of accredited VET. While there is a positive association between enterprise size and the implementation of VET, nonetheless, the results demonstrate that small business investment in structured VET is minimal. The results also show that significant size-related and industry differences exist in training provision, methods, fields and providers in small business, with substantive differences occurring between small and medium-sized firms. Research limitations/implications: This paper relied upon a secondary data source, and is limited by the VET variables available in the BLS. Practical implications: The findings in the paper indicate that, at the micro-end of firm size, only the minority of firms provide training, suggesting that no matter what definition of VET is adopted, the majority of micro-businesses do not provide training. Originality/value: The paper focused exclusively on VET in SMEs in Australia, adding to the very few longitudinal inter-industry studies conducted to date that have explicitly examined the nature and extent of VET relative to other forms of training in small business. (Contains 5 tables and 3 notes.)