Abstract Introduction This retrospective cohort study compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of endodontic treatment performed in immature nonvital permanent teeth by apexification (calcium hydroxide or apical barrier with mineral trioxide aggregate) versus revascularization. Methods A comprehensive chart review was performed to obtain a cohort of previously completed cases with recalls. Clinical and radiographic data were collected for 31 treated teeth (19 revascularization and 12 apexification) with an average follow-up time of 17 months and a recall rate of 63%. Tooth survival, success rate, and adverse events were analyzed. Changes in radiographic root length, width, and area were quantified. Results The majority of treated teeth survived throughout the study period, with 30 of 31 (97%) teeth surviving (18/19 [95%] revascularization and 12/12 apexification). Most cases were also clinically successful, with 27 of 31 (87%) meeting criteria for success (15/19 [78%] revascularization and 12/12 apexification; nonsignificant difference). A greater incidence of adverse events was observed in the revascularization group (8/19 [42%] vs 1/12 [11%] in apexification) (risk ratio = 5.1; P = .04; 95% confidence interval, 0.719–35.48). Although more revascularization cases than apexification cases showed an increase in radiographic root area and width, the effect was not statistically significant. Conclusions In this study, revascularization was not superior to other apexification techniques in either clinical or radiographic outcomes. Studies with large subject cohorts and long follow-up periods are needed to evaluate outcomes of revascularization and apexification while accounting for important covariants relevant to clinical success.