Introduction: Practice of videolaryngoscopy in anesthesia has been found to improve the ease of intubation in patients with normal and difficult airway both. Airtraq and King vision are two commonly available channelled videolaryngoscopes. Presently, very few data regarding comparison of these two videolaryngoscopes are available. Materials and Methods: After getting approval from the ethical committee, 60 ASA Grade I and II, adult patients posted for elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. After induction with standard protocol, intubation was done using either Airtraq or King vision videolaryngoscope as per the group. The primary aim was to observe the intubation time and secondary aims included were quality of visualization of glottic aperture, number of attempts, manoeuvres required during intubation and complications. Results: The time required to intubate patients was shorter with King Vision video laryngoscope as compared to Airtraq (29.03 ± 1.84 vs 31.20 ± 4.08 seconds, p = 0.01). No difference was noted in number of attempts, quality of visualization or optimization manoeuvres during intubation for subjective device. Conclusion: Both the video laryngoscopes are suitable for intubation in routine clinical practice. Though, King vision gives faster view of glottis and rapid tube insertion into the glottis as compared to Airtraq, the clinical significance remained negligible.