BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There has been limited assessment between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. We sought to compare PROMs from two-level ACDF with single-level ACCF procedures. We evaluate these results in the context of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, which have not been performed previously. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database Spine Collaborative Research Study Group compared two-level ACDF and single-level ACCF at 3-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMs included arm pain Numeric Rating Scale, neck pain Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine differences in perioperative outcomes, as well as the impact of two-level ACDF vs one-level ACCF on PROMs. MCID thresholds were based off previously established limits. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty patients were included (236 ACDF, 94 ACCF), and the follow-up rate was 82% at 2 years. There was a significantly higher baseline age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, proportion of diabetes, osteoarthritis, ambulation dependence, and myelopathy severity in the ACCF cohort. On multivariable analysis, the ACCF group had greater average length of stay and estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences between reoperation rates or nonroutine discharge. There were similar rates of MCID achievement for PROMs at all time points. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both ACDF and ACCF procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are able to achieve similar, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs by 2 years. Patients undergoing single-level ACCF have more estimated blood loss and longer length of stay, as well as worse baseline myelopathy. Both procedures have efficacious, durable outcomes. It is reasonable that other factors, such as radiographic characteristics and patient symptoms, may influence patient selection for ACDF vs ACCF.