BACKGROUND The use of circular fixators for the treatment of tibial fractures is well established in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the Ilizarov circular fixator (ICF) with the Taylor spatial frame (TSF) in terms of treatment results in consecutive patients with tibial fractures that required operative management. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patient records and radiographs was performed to obtain patient data, information on injury sustained, the operative technique used, time duration in frame, healing time and complications of treatment. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS Ten patients were treated with ICF between 2000 and 2005, while 15 patients have been treated with TSF since 2005. Two of the 10 treated with ICF and 5 of the 15 treated with TSF were open fractures. All patients went on to achieve complete union. Mean duration in the frame was 12.7 weeks for ICF and 14.8 weeks for the TSF group. Two patients in the TSF group had delayed union and required additional procedures including adjustment of fixator and bone grafting. There was one malunion in the TSF group that required osteotomy and reapplication of frame. There were seven and nine pin-site infections in the ICF and TSF groups, respectively, all of which responded to antibiotics. There were no refractures in either group. CONCLUSIONS In an appropriate patient, both types of circular fixator are equally effective but have different characteristics, with TSF allowing for postoperative deformity correction. Of concern are the two cases of delayed union in the TSF group, all in patients with high-energy injuries. We feel another larger study is required to provide further clarity in this matter. METHODS Level II-comparative study.