Accurate estimation of support moments in continuous beams is essential for ensuring structural safety, serviceability, and material efficiency in modern reinforced concrete design. Despite advancements in computational modeling, inconsistencies persist between classical analytical predictions and finite element (FE) simulations, particularly at internal supports where stress concentrations and boundary idealizations strongly influence results. This study addresses this gap by conducting a comparative analysis of support moment variability in double-span continuous beams under symmetric loading, using classical analytical methods the Slope Deflection Method, Moment Distribution Method, and Clapeyron’s Three-Moment Theorem alongside finite element modeling (FEM) in STAADPro. The beams were modeled as linearly elastic, isotropic elements with uniform stiffness, subjected to both point and uniformly distributed loads. Analytical and numerical results were compared using percentage deviation analysis to evaluate consistency and accuracy. The results revealed a strong correlation between analytical and finite element outcomes, with an average deviation of approximately 9.7%, confirming that both approaches yield reliable support moment predictions within acceptable engineering tolerances. Minor discrepancies were attributed to mesh discretization, stiffness distribution, and boundary flexibility inherent in FEM modeling. The study found that analytical methods provided transparent and computationally efficient solutions, while finite element analysis offered refined accuracy and visualization of structural responses. These findings highlight the complementary roles of analytical and numerical approaches in structural analysis, reinforcing the continued relevance of classical theory for design verification and educational application. The research provides a harmonized framework for integrating analytical and computational techniques in beam design, offering practical guidance for engineers and educators while promoting accuracy, efficiency, and compliance with performance-based structural design standards.