Introduction: EVAR is still somehow in the evaluation period as a modality for treatment of infrarenal AAA that is capable of totally replacing the conventional open repair. Though, it proved less perioperative mortality and morbidity but it is questioned the value of EVAR in terms of long term results and graft-related complications and the need for reintervention. Methods: During the period between January 2012 and October 2013, we treated a total of 30 patients suffering from infrarenal AAA >5 cm in the widest diameter. Every patient was checked to ensure the suitability for both modalities of treatment in terms of aneurysm anatomy and general medical status. Afterwards, the choice of treatment for every patient was randomly assigned so that half the patients were treated with EVAR and the other half were treated with open repair. Comparing the outcome focused on two endpoints which are mortality and procedure-related complications both in the perioperative 30-day period and through a 6-month follow up interval. Results: The perioperative aneurysm-related mortality was equal in both groups 1/15 (6.7%). In the 6-months follow-up one more patient from the open repair group was lost due to death from another cause making the all-cause mortality in the open repair group 2/15 (13.3%) versus 1/15 (6.7%) in the EVAR group. The overall complication rate in the EVAR group there was 5/15 (33.3%) while the open repair group was 7/15 (46.7%). Severe complications occurred in one case (myocardial infection) (6.7%) in the EVAR group, while in the open repair group there were 2/15 (13.3%). There were two graft-related complications in the whole study and both belonged to the EVAR group (Type II endoleak). Conclusion: EVAR would provide less perioperative complications compared to open repair. However, aneurysm-related mortality and longer term procedure-related complications may need further evaluation in the prospective of the study sample size and the follow up period.