Several structural equation modeling (SEM) strategies were developed for assessing measurement invariance (MI) across groups relaxing the assumptions of strict MI to partial, approximate, and partial approximate MI. Nonetheless, applied researchers still do not know if and under what conditions these strategies might provide results that allow for valid comparisons across groups in large-scale comparative surveys. We perform a comprehensive Monte Carlo simulation study to assess the conditions under which various SEM methods are appropriate to estimate latent means and path coefficients and their differences across groups. We find that while SEM path coefficients are relatively robust to violations of full MI and can be rather effectively recovered, recovering latent means and their group rankings might be difficult. Our results suggest that, contrary to some previous recommendations, partial invariance may rather effectively recover both path coefficients and latent means even when the majority of items are noninvariant. Although it is more difficult to recover latent means using approximate and partial approximate MI methods, it is possible under specific conditions and using appropriate models. These models also have the advantage of providing accurate standard errors. Alignment is recommended for recovering latent means in cases where there are only a few noninvariant parameters across groups.