Background: I–gel airway and LMA–Supreme are two recently introduced cuffed supraglottic airway devices used for maintaining airway during controlled ventilation under general anaesthesia. Aim: Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of LMA SUPREME and I–GEL during general anesthesia. Material and methods: Our study was carried out on 100 patients (ASA I&II) 25–60 years of age of either sex weighing 50–90 kg undergoing laparoscopic surgeries in supine position under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, Group A (LMA–Supreme, n=50) and Group B (I–Gel, n=50). Ease of insertion, insertion time, airway sealing pressure and ease of insertion of gastric tube were recorded. Blood staining of device, lip and dental trauma, regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents, post operative dysphagia and dysphonia were also recorded. Statistical analysis used: Statistical analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 15.0. Statistical formulas used included mean, standard deviation, chi square test and student ‘t’ test. P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Ease of insertion was more with LMA–Supreme (47/50, 94%) than I–Gel (40/50, 80%). Number of more than one insertion attempts was more in I–Gel (8/50, 16%) than LMA–Supreme (4/50, 8%). Mean insertion time (in seconds) with LMA–Supreme was (17.7±2.96) and (23.7± 2.93) with I–Gel (P<0.001). Airway sealing pressure (in cm H2O ± S.D.) was higher with LMA–Supreme (27.9±2.23) than I–gel (22.3±1.82), (P<0.001). Gastric tube placement was easier with LMA–Supreme (50/50, single attempt) than I– Gel (44/50,>1 attempts in 6 cases). Blood on device was lower with I–Gel (3/50, 6%) than LMA–Supreme (7/50, 14%).There was no incidence of lip and dental trauma, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, aspiration, regurgitation, dysphagia and dysphonia in both groups. Conclusion: We conclude that LMA–Supreme is an effective device with higher airway sealing pressure, easier insertion, lesser mean insertion time, and easier gastric tube placement as compared to I–Gel.