The early randomized trial experience (CAVATAS, SPACE, EVA-3S, ICSS) comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been burdened by the limited experience of the interventionalists performing CAS. The periprocedural stroke excess with CAS observed in those trials has ever since affected carotid revascularization, especially in symptomatic carotid disease. Accordingly, no trial dedicated to this patient population has followed. In asymptomatic carotid disease, CREST, ACT-1 and ACST-2 have shown an equivalence in terms of combined periprocedural events as well as long-term protection from ipsilateral stroke or repeat revascularization between the two techniques. The management of patients with carotid stenosis should be multidisciplinary and decision to pursue medical management or proceed to revascularization in an individual patient should be based on his estimated stroke risk on medical management and his suitability for CEA and CAS. Since the majority of patients with carotid stenosis may qualify for both techniques, patient's perspective should be central in decision making.