Ecological restoration and rewilding are two approaches with complementary goals. This review compares and clarifies their positions, highlighting their shared scope of ecosystem recovery after anthropogenic degradation. Despite differences in goals—restoring a defined historical ecosystem versus restoring natural processes—both aim to recover ecosystems. Their goals have expanded with each field's progress, but it is unclear if one is moving toward the other. The two approaches are complementary in time and space, and their integration could create synergy for common objectives. Ecological restoration began in the mid-1930s, focusing on restoring degraded ecosystems through targeted interventions. Rewilding emerged in the late 1990s, emphasizing natural processes and self-sustaining ecosystems. Both share principles like restoring ecological functions and considering climate change, but differ in approaches: ecological restoration is bottom-up, focusing on species and habitats, while rewilding is top-down, emphasizing trophic interactions and natural processes. Both disciplines use reference ecosystems, but ecological restoration relies on native ecosystems, while rewilding uses natural and functional ones. They differ in intervention scales, with rewilding often applied at larger scales. Ecological restoration includes activities like reclamation and rehabilitation, while rewilding uses species reintroduction and trophic rewilding. Rewilding has faced debates about its status as a separate approach from ecological restoration. While some argue it is part of a restoration continuum, others highlight its distinct goals, such as open-ended natural processes and functional targets. Rewilding proponents emphasize top-down approaches, while ecological restoration uses bottom-up methods. Both fields have evolved, with ecological restoration incorporating a broader range of ecosystems and rewilding focusing on natural processes. Ecological restoration has a more defined goal of restoring historical ecosystems, while rewilding aims for self-sustaining ecosystems. Both face challenges, including unpredictability and social acceptance, but can complement each other through combined efforts. The review suggests that integrating ecological restoration and rewilding through complementary approaches could enhance ecosystem recovery. This includes using ecological restoration to create conditions for rewilding, such as restoring habitats and reducing invasive species, followed by rewilding to allow natural processes to take over. Both approaches can be used in different scales and contexts, with ecological restoration often providing the foundation for rewilding. The integration of both fields could lead to more effective and sustainable ecosystem recovery.Ecological restoration and rewilding are two approaches with complementary goals. This review compares and clarifies their positions, highlighting their shared scope of ecosystem recovery after anthropogenic degradation. Despite differences in goals—restoring a defined historical ecosystem versus restoring natural processes—both aim to recover ecosystems. Their goals have expanded with each field's progress, but it is unclear if one is moving toward the other. The two approaches are complementary in time and space, and their integration could create synergy for common objectives. Ecological restoration began in the mid-1930s, focusing on restoring degraded ecosystems through targeted interventions. Rewilding emerged in the late 1990s, emphasizing natural processes and self-sustaining ecosystems. Both share principles like restoring ecological functions and considering climate change, but differ in approaches: ecological restoration is bottom-up, focusing on species and habitats, while rewilding is top-down, emphasizing trophic interactions and natural processes. Both disciplines use reference ecosystems, but ecological restoration relies on native ecosystems, while rewilding uses natural and functional ones. They differ in intervention scales, with rewilding often applied at larger scales. Ecological restoration includes activities like reclamation and rehabilitation, while rewilding uses species reintroduction and trophic rewilding. Rewilding has faced debates about its status as a separate approach from ecological restoration. While some argue it is part of a restoration continuum, others highlight its distinct goals, such as open-ended natural processes and functional targets. Rewilding proponents emphasize top-down approaches, while ecological restoration uses bottom-up methods. Both fields have evolved, with ecological restoration incorporating a broader range of ecosystems and rewilding focusing on natural processes. Ecological restoration has a more defined goal of restoring historical ecosystems, while rewilding aims for self-sustaining ecosystems. Both face challenges, including unpredictability and social acceptance, but can complement each other through combined efforts. The review suggests that integrating ecological restoration and rewilding through complementary approaches could enhance ecosystem recovery. This includes using ecological restoration to create conditions for rewilding, such as restoring habitats and reducing invasive species, followed by rewilding to allow natural processes to take over. Both approaches can be used in different scales and contexts, with ecological restoration often providing the foundation for rewilding. The integration of both fields could lead to more effective and sustainable ecosystem recovery.