Background : Minimally invasive endovenous thermal ablaton therapy has revolutionized the treatment of varicose veins. Comparing both techniques (RFA versus EVLA) need to be more elaborated in the context of better management of patients. Methods: fifty young 10 patient bilateral and 40 patients unilateral) patients were enrolled in this study over the period of 2 years starting from June 2014 in a prospective interventional study. All patients were blinded to the chosen method to achieve a single blinded study, with 2 groups. Exclusion criteria included, DVT, PAD, severe tortuosity of GSV, refusal of consent. All patients were assessed for deep system patency and flow in ablated segment by duplex immediately after procedure and one month later. Results: Sixty limbs were equally allocated to 2 groups. There was no significant difference between both groups concerning the demography,and CEAP classification. All patients were blinded to the method of venous ablation. Postoperative duplex shows no failed recanalization nor DVT. Pain, ecchymosis and superfacial thrombophlebitis were significantly higher in EVLA group versus RFA group (P value < 0.05) Surprisingly, First degree burn occurred in 2 cases (6.6%) in EVLA group. Conclusion: Both thermal ablative techniques performed well concerning high occlusion rates for incompetent GSV. Less postoperative complications were observed with RFA as compared to EVLA, namely postoperative pain , ecchymosis, superficial thrombophlebitis and first degree burn burn. However such complications were deemed to be benign and managed conservatively. Key words: Endovenous laser, Radiofrequency, Varicose veins ablation, Complications of venous ablation.