Introduction: Adequate sedation/anaesthetic effect, good haemodynamic control as well as maintenance of seizure duration are the key aspects for selection of the anesthesia of choice for ECT procedures. Methods: A total of 110 ASA I/II patients aged 18 to 60 years (Mean age 29.10±9.94 years, 52.7% males) scheduled for ECT were enrolled and were randomly allocated to two equal groups, Group E received 0.2 mg/kg Etomidate (0.2%) i.v. and Group T received 5 mg/kg (2.5%) Thiopental sodium. Clinicodemographic details were noted and baseline hematological assessment was done. Patients underwent ECT as per their group protocol. Hemodynamics were recorded at 0 min to till end of ECT, and thereafter every 15 minutes for up to 1 hour following ECT. Induction time, duration of clinical seizure, and adverse effects, if any, were recorded. MMSE scores were also assessed for cognitive function. Results: The two groups were matched statistically for demographics, baseline clinical and hematological profile. Hemodynamic variations were seen in both the groups, however, generally they were comparable, but blood pressure control was better in Etomidate as compared to that in Thiopental group. In Group E as compared to that in Group T induction time (27.84±1.70 vs. 25.12±3.54 seconds) as well as duration of clinical seizure (47.71±1.46 vs 43.36±2.35 seconds) was longer. Recovery was earlier in Group E as compared to that in Group T. Incidence of myoclonic jerks and arrhythmia was also significantly higher in Group E as compared to that in Group E (12.7% vs 0% and 10.9% vs 0% respectively). MMSE scores were comparable. Conclusion: Both Etomidate and Thiopental were effective and safe. Of the two, Etomidate had a better performance as it prolonged seizure activity and had better hemodynamic control but with higher incidence of adverse effects.