Low-cost 3D sensors are nowadays widely diffused and many different solutions are available on the market. Some of these devices were developed for entertaining purposes, but are used also for acquisition and processing of different 3D data with the aim of documentation, research and study. Given the fact that these sensors were not developed for this purpose, it is necessary to evaluate their use in the capturing process. This paper shows a preliminary research comparing the Kinect 1 and 2 by Microsoft, the Structure Sensor by Occipital and the O&P Scan by Rodin4D in a medical scenario (i.e. human body scans). In particular, these sensors were compared to Minolta Vivid 9i, chosen as reference because of its higher accuracy. Different test objects were analysed: a calibrated flat plane, for the evaluation of the systematic distance error for each device, and three different parts of a mannequin, used as samples of human body parts. The results showed that the use of a certified flat plane is a good starting point in characterizing the sensors, but a complete analysis with objects similar to the ones of the real context of application is required. For example, the Kinect 2 presented the best results among the low-cost sensors on the flat plane, while the Structure Sensor was more reliable on the mannequin parts.