Abstract Background. The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system is currently being studied for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. To the best of our knowledge, no study comparing the novel cryoablation system with the standard Arctic Front™ cryoballoon is available in today’s literature. This study aims to compare Polarx™ and Arctic Front™ cryoballoon in terms of safety and efficacy. Methods. From a total cohort of 202 patients who underwent pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for paroxysmal AF through cryoablation, a population of 30 patients who used Polarx™ were compared with 30 propensity-score matched patients who used Arctic Front™. Results. Pulmonary vein occlusion and electrical isolation were achieved in all (100%) veins with a mean number of 1.09 ± 0.3 occlusion per vein using Polarx™ and 1.19 ± 0.5 occlusion per vein using Arctic Front™ (p = 0.6). Shorter procedure and fluoroscopy time were observed with Polarx™ group (60.5 ± 14.23 vs 73.43 ± 13.26 mins, p = 0.001; 12.83 ± 6.03 vs 17.23 ± 7.17 mins, p = 0.01, respectively). Lower cumulative freeze duration per vein was also observed with Polarx™ (203.38 ± 72.03 vs 224.9 ± 79.35 mins, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in isolation time between the two groups (34.47 ± 21.23 vs 34.18 ± 26.79 secs, p = 0.9). Conclusion. The novel Polarx™ cryoablation system showed similar efficacy in vein occlusion and isolation and safety profile when compared to Arctic Front™ cryoablation system. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and cumulative freeze duration were significantly lower with Polarx™ cryoablation system.