Anilido imine–magnesium bromide complexes, (LHMgBr)2 and (LMeMgBr)2, have been prepared [LH = DIPP‐N(C6H4)C(H)N‐DIPP and LMe = DIPP‐N(C6H4)C(Me)N‐DIPP (DIPP = 2,6‐iPr2C6H3)]. Their dimeric crystal structures are compared to the dimer (DIPP‐nacnacMgBr)2 [DIPP‐nacnac = DIPP‐NC(Me)C(H)C(Me)N‐DIPP]. The anilido imine ligands show some degree of charge delocalization but are clearly more asymmetric than the DIPP‐nacnac complex: one of the N atoms has considerable anilido character, whereas the other one is close to an imine. Calculated natural population analysis (NPA) charges (B3PW91/6‐311++G**) and an atoms‐in‐molecules (AIM) study on model systems quantify the asymmetry in charge distribution. Quantification of the Lewis acidity of LHMgBr and LMeMgBr by the Gutmann–Beckett test gave acceptor numbers of 58.9 and 58.3, respectively. The complexes themselves are inert to a number of electrophiles; however, in combination with PPh3 the substrate 1‐butene oxide was ring‐opened. The resulting betaine‐type alkoxide complex is unstable and decomposes at room temperature through a Wittig‐type reaction. At higher temperatures also a reverse Wittig‐type decomposition is observed.