This study was conducted in Bombay, India, to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic application of the spring‐loaded clip and the tubal ring in 300 immediate postabortion patients. The two techniques were randomly assigned to the study subjects and, to minimize interoperation variability, performed by the same operator. Another physician, unaware of the procedure used, evaluated and cared for the patient after surgery. All but one of these women returned for follow‐up 7–21 days after sterilization, and 74.7% and 81.3%, respectively, of the clip and tubal ring groups reported for the six‐ and 12‐month follow‐up visits. There was one technical failure among the tubal ring cases. Surgical difficulties were encountered in 7.3% of the clip and 8.0% of the ring procedures. The incidence of complications until the first follow‐up visit was significantly higher for the clip (9.3%) than for the ring (4.7%) cases, although none of a serious nature were reported. There were significantly more immediate postoperative complaints among subjects sterilized with the ring than with the clip, but the incidence of early postoperative complaints was similar for the two groups. The rate of pelvic pathology was low at six and 12 months after sterilization, and none of these patients required surgery within a year of sterilization. Three of the women sterilized with the spring‐loaded clip, but none of those sterilized with the tubal ring, became pregnant. Thus, while both devices were associated with clinically acceptable morbidity, the tubal ring was found to be the more effective.