E lectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been the state-of-the-art treatment for the most severe or difficult-to-treat forms of depressive disorders for many decades. 1 Several other treatment options have emerged for the indication treatment-resistant depression, challenging ECT's unique role in this indication. Only recently, 2 randomized controlled trials have been published in high-rank medical journals, suggesting an at least equal efficacy and even better tolerability of the competitors ketamine and magnetic seizure therapy (MST) in comparison to ECT. 2,3 In the abstract of the first study, Anand et al 2 claim that "ketamine was noninferior to ECT as therapy for treatment-resistant major depression without psychosis." In the abstract of the article by Deng et al, 3 the authors assert that the efficacy of MST is "indistinguishable" from that of ultrabrief pulse right unilateral (RUL) ECT for the treatment of a major depressive episode. In our opinion, this is misleading as the authors themselves state in the discussion that the study was not powered as an equivalence or noninferiority trial. Both studies caught the attention of the press and secondary literature and were reported under the headlines "Ketamine Is Even More Effective Than ECT in Depression" 4 and "Magnetic Seizure Therapy Found as Effective as ECT." 5 Again, both conclusions seem misleading and inadequate. The ELEKT-D study by Anand et al 2 was designed as a noninferiority study and thus cannot prove a superior effectiveness of ketamine, while the MST versus ECT study 3 was not powered as a noninferiority trial and thus cannot prove equivalence of the 2 treatments.Besides this way too enthusiastic reception of the new antidepressant treatments, the most striking parallel between the studies is a very low response rate in the ECT groups of 41.2% 2 and 42.1%, 3 respectively, which is well below the pooled response and remission rates reported in the literature. 1 In this comment, we would thus like to discuss the specific study designs and ECT technique used in these studies and its impact on the study results. Although we generally accept the further need to develop alternative and personalized treatment options for patients with depressive disorders, we still deem it necessary to have a thorough look at the methods and results of these new studies and not draw any clinically meaningful conclusions that are not supported by the data.