To compare distance and near visual acuity along with accommodative amplitude in eyes implanted with the Tetraflex and the Tek-clear accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs). Methods: Comparative, prospective, non-randomized study. Thirty-eight eyes of 26 patients implanted with the Tetraflex (17 eyes) and Tekclear (21 eyes) AIOLs were enrolled. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), best-corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) and spherical equivalent refraction were the parameters evaluated postoperatively. Also, the accommodative amplitude was assessed with subjective defocus method and objective anterior chamber depth measurement before and after the topical application of pilocarpine using a Scheimpflug-Placido disc topographer at postoperative month 3 and 6. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the two AIOL types in regards to BCDVA, DCNVA, and BCNVA at months 1, 3, and 6 (p>0.05). The mean UCDVA was significantly better in Tetraflex implanted eyes (p=0.001, p=0.002, p=0.008), whereas the mean UCNVA was significantly better in Tek-clear implanted eyes (p=0.008, p=0.01, p<0.0001) at postoperative month 1, 3, and 6, respectively. Both subjective and objective accommodative amplitude assessments did not display a significant difference between the two groups at month 6 (p>0.05). Conclusion: The Tetraflex accommodative IOL seemed to be better at UCDVA, whereas Tek-clear seemed better at UCNVA. The accommodation range of Tetraflex and Tek-clear lenses was comparable.