Terminology facilitates the transmission of knowledge and also actively contributes to its production and development, maintaining a bidirectional relationship with scientific disciplines. Nevertheless, researchers often overlook the study of terminology, considering it outside their professional responsibilities, resulting in a communicative gap between subject-matter experts and terminological endeavors. Given the importance of terminology, the present study adopts a comparative, descriptive-analytical approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative analyses to critically examine Persian mathematical terminology across three major lexical resources: the APPL Hezārvāžeh (Mathematics), the IMS online Dictionary, and the IranDoc online Thesaurus. Since Hezārvāžeh encompasses 1,331 mathematical concepts, all were initially analyzed according to three criteria: mononymy, synonymy, and lexical opacity. Subsequently, the corresponding terms for these concepts were examined within the IMS Dictionary and the IranDoc Thesaurus. Findings indicate that mathematical terminology, compared to many other scientific fields, exhibits greater transparency and a higher degree of one-to-one correspondence between concept and term, with synonymy rates of only 3.4% in Hezārvāžeh, 4.8% in the online Dictionary, and 15.82% in the online Thesaurus. Contributing factors to synonymy include the concurrent use of borrowing and translation, competition between Arabic and Persian roots, the coexistence of single-word terms and syntactic phrases, and phonological variations. The search for terms also revealed that 7.4% and 16.25% of the Academy-approved terms are absent from the Dictionary and the Thesaurus, respectively. Furthermore, an analysis of homonymy in mathematical concepts revealed that the rate of homonymy in Persian—compared to English—is 28% in Hezārvāžeh, 25% in the online Dictionary, and 54% in the online Thesaurus. This indicates that Persian, by employing its own linguistic resources, has succeeded in reducing homonymy in Persian terminology relative to the source language. In addition, certain inconsistencies—including morphological irregularities, insufficient attention to lexical clusters, and instances of lexical opacity—were observed across all three sources and are described and analyzed in detail. The article concludes with practical recommendations for improving, consolidating, and promoting Persian mathematical terminology within the scientific community.