Objective. The aim of the study was to validate the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) in the Ecuadorian context, as well as to analyze its internal consistency and convergent validity with the Ambivalence Inventory towards men (AMI). Method. Men (44.1%) and women (55.9%) from the city of Quito (N = 965), aged from 20 to 60 years old, participated in this quantitative and instrumental study. Results. The ASI presents an adequate factorial fit to the original two-factor model; there is internal consistency in the total scale (w = .72) and in the two factors (hostile sexism: w = .71; benevolent sexism: w = .53), and statistically significant convergent validity with the AMI (r = .652). It is concluded that the instrument use in the Ecuadorian context is valid.Objetivo. El objetivo del estudio fue realizar la validación del Inventario de Sexismo Ambivalente (ASI) en el contexto ecuatoriano, así como analizar su consistencia interna y validez convergente con el Inventario de Ambivalencia hacia Hombres (AMI). Método. Participaron en el presente estudio, cuantitativo e instrumental, hombres (44.1%) y mujeres (55.9%) de la ciudad de Quito (N = 965) entre los 20 y los 60 años. Resultados. El ASI presenta un ajuste factorial adecuado al modelo original de dos factores; existe además consistencia interna en la escala total (w = .72) y en los dos factores (sexismo hostil: w = .71; sexismo benevolente: w = .53), y una validez convergente estadísticamente significativa con el AMI (r = .652). Se concluye que el instrumento es válido para uso en el contexto ecuatoriano.Objective. The aim of the study was to validate the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) in the Ecuadorian context, as well as to analyze its internal consistency and convergent validity with the Ambivalence Inventory towards men (AMI). Method. Men (44.1%) and women (55.9%) from the city of Quito (N = 965), aged from 20 to 60 years old, participated in this quantitative and instrumental study. Results. The ASI presents an adequate factorial fit to the original two-factor model; there is internal consistency in the total scale (w = .72) and in the two factors (hostile sexism: w = .71; benevolent sexism: w = .53), and statistically significant convergent validity with the AMI (r = .652). It is concluded that the instrument use in the Ecuadorian context is valid.