Background: No anesthesia is safe or satisfactory unless diligent efforts are made toward the maintenance of a functioning, unobstructed airway. LMA & COPA both devices can be used to establish an airway for spontaneously breathing anesthetized patients with little difficulty or trauma. Hence an attempt was made to organize a randomized clinical comparative study with regard to the usefulness & complications of LMA & COPA. Method: A total of 60 patients of ASA Grade I and Grade II undergoing elective surgical procedures with both sexes, ranging in age from 18 to 55 years were included. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient and the procedure was explained to the patient. A thorough pre-operative examination and detailed history were completed according to the proforma. The patients were randomly assigned to either LMA or COPA placement. Result: The demographic data of all patients were comparable in both groups (p>0.05). The first-time successful insertion rate was higher in the LMA group (93.33%) than in the COPA group (83.33%). Airway interventions were required more often with COPA & “hands-free” ventilation was better with LMA than with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic variables, LMA & COPA are equivalents. Conclusion: Considering technical aspects of airway management, LMA is better than COPA with respect higher first-time success rate of LMA. More airway manipulation is required with COPA. With respect to hemodynamic stability, LMA & COPA are equivalent. LMA is associated with more incidences of sore throat in the immediate postoperative period than COPA. Postoperative late sore throat incidences are similar to LMA & COPA.