Background Lengthening over a nail and internal lengthening nails have been developed to minimize or eliminate patients' time wearing a frame during femur lengthening. However it is unclear whether either of these two approaches results in faster times to union or fewer complications over the other. Questions/purposes We asked which technique better achieved: (1) the lengthening goals, (2) the distraction rate control, (3) quality of the regenerate bone, (4) fewer complications, and (5) SF-36 and AAOS LLM scores also were compiled. The minimum followups for the ISKD and the lengthening over nail cohorts were 62 months (average, 76 months; range, 62-93 months) and 13 months (average, 27 months; range, 13-38 months), respectively. Results We observed no difference in achieving the lengthening goals between the two procedures. Distraction was not well controlled in the ISKD group; the distraction rates were 1.7 mm per day for the fast group (distraction rate greater than 1 mm/day) and 0.84 mm per day for the slow group (less than 1 mm/day). The lengthening over nail group had an average distraction rate of 0.88 mm per day. One of 20 of the patients who had lengthening over a nail had complications requiring additional unanticipated surgeries whereas six of 12 patients who had femoral lengthening in the ISKD group had such complications. Conclusions Based on our observations, we believe the lengthening over nail technique for femoral lengthening is associated with fewer complications than the ISKD. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.