Background: Acne scars result from changes in the skin's healing process triggered by inflammation. MNRF is highly effective in the treatment of acne scars. However, the use of PRP vs I PRF postmnrf requires detailed studies. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of MNRF with PRP versus I PRF in treating acne scars. Materials and methods: This was a split-face comparative study including 43 patients with moderate to severe acne scars. The patients underwent three sessions of MNRF with I-PRF on the right side and MNRF with PRP on the left side of the face at intervals of 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Goodman and Baron's qualitative and quantitative grades along with a visual analogue scale and physician assessment of scars were done to assess the outcomes. The side effects were also assessed and compared. Results: Based on the Goodman and Baron quantitative and qualitative grades, the scars on both sides of the face had significantly improved, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. VAS score showed a larger proportion showing improvements between 50-75% after the intervention (55.8% on the right side and 65.1% on the left side) and was statistically significant. Conclusion: Both PRP and I-PRF post-MNRF were effective in treating acne scars. In comparison, results between the two modalities did not yield statistically significant differences. I-PRF exhibited better visual differences and longer-lasting filling effects, even though the Goodman and Baron scoring system did not show statistically significant changes.