The article reviews the differences and similarities between ecological restoration and rewilding, two approaches aimed at recovering ecosystems degraded by human activities. Despite their shared goal of ecosystem recovery, these two paradigms differ in their methods and goals. Ecological restoration typically focuses on restoring historical ecosystems using bottom-up approaches and specific targets, while rewilding emphasizes the recovery of natural processes and functions, often without a precise endpoint. Both paradigms consider large-scale interventions and the effects of climate change. Ecological restoration is more historically rooted and has a broader policy support, whereas rewilding is a more recent concept with less policy integration. The article highlights the complementarity of these approaches, suggesting that combining them can create synergies for achieving their common goal of ecosystem recovery. It also discusses the evolving nature of these paradigms, with ecological restoration expanding to include ecosystem functions and trophic chains, and rewilding considering the use of domestic animals and plants in urban settings. The article concludes by emphasizing the potential for reconciliation and synergy between ecological restoration and rewilding to enhance nature recovery.The article reviews the differences and similarities between ecological restoration and rewilding, two approaches aimed at recovering ecosystems degraded by human activities. Despite their shared goal of ecosystem recovery, these two paradigms differ in their methods and goals. Ecological restoration typically focuses on restoring historical ecosystems using bottom-up approaches and specific targets, while rewilding emphasizes the recovery of natural processes and functions, often without a precise endpoint. Both paradigms consider large-scale interventions and the effects of climate change. Ecological restoration is more historically rooted and has a broader policy support, whereas rewilding is a more recent concept with less policy integration. The article highlights the complementarity of these approaches, suggesting that combining them can create synergies for achieving their common goal of ecosystem recovery. It also discusses the evolving nature of these paradigms, with ecological restoration expanding to include ecosystem functions and trophic chains, and rewilding considering the use of domestic animals and plants in urban settings. The article concludes by emphasizing the potential for reconciliation and synergy between ecological restoration and rewilding to enhance nature recovery.