In general, providing an axiomatization for an arbitrary logic is a task that may require some ingenuity. In the case of logics defined by a finite logical matrix (three-valued logics being a particularly simple example), the generation of suitable finite axiomatizations can be completely automatized, essentially by expressing the matrix tables via inference rules. In this chapter we illustrate how two formalisms, the 3-labelled calculi of Baaz, Fermüller and Zach and the multiple-conclusion (or Set-Set) Hilbert-style calculi of Shoesmith and Smiley, may be uniformly employed to axiomatize logics defined by a three-valued logical matrix. We discuss their main properties (related to completeness, decidability and proof search) and make a systematic comparison between both formalisms. We observe that either of the following strategies are pursued: (i) expanding the metalanguage of the formalism (via labels or types) or (ii) generalizing the usual notion of subformula property (as done in recent work by C. Caleiro and S. Marcelino) while remaining as close as possible to the original language of the logic. In both cases, desirable requirements are to guarantee the decidability of the associated symbolic procedure, as well as the possibility of an effective proof search. The generating procedure common to both formalisms can be described as follows: first (i) convert the matrix semantics into rule form (we refer to this step as the generating subprocedure) and then (ii) simplify the set of rules thus obtained, essentially relying on the defining properties of any Tarskian consequence relation (we refer to this step as the streamlining subprocedure). We illustrate through some examples that, if a minimal expressiveness assumption is met (namely, if the matrix defining the logic is monadic), then it is straightforward to define effective translations guaranteeing the equivalence between the 3-labelled and the Set-Set approach.