Development of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysms repair (EVAR), now in its 4th decade, has involved at least 16 different devices, not counting major modifications of some, only 4 of which have emerged from clinical trials and gained US Food and Drug Administration approval. The main impetus behind EVAR has been its potential for significantly reducing procedural mortality and morbidity, but it was also expected to speed recovery and reduce costs through decreased use of hospital resources. At the outset, EVAR was touted as a better alternative to OPEN in high-risk patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, and to “watchful waiting” (periodic ultrasound surveillance) for those with small abdominal aortic aneurysms. This new technology has evoked a mixed response with enthusiasts and detractors debating its pros and cons. Bias and conflict of interest exist on both sides. This review will attempt to present a balanced review of the development and current status of this controversial competition between EVAR and OPEN, comparing them in terms of the following key considerations: mortality and morbidity, complications, failure modes and durability, and costs.