Purpose Bracing is the preferred treatment for pectus carinatum. However, no studies have compared outcomes of different bracing methods. We tested the hypothesis that the type of brace has no effect on outcomes. Methododology A retrospective study of children who underwent bracing during a 10-year period (2011-2021) at a multidisciplinary chest wall anomaly center was conducted. The characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with a pressure-guided orthotist-adjusted brace (FMF Dynamic Compression System) were compared to those treated with a simpler, less costly, self-adjustable brace (Trulife). Pressure of correction was used to assess severity. A standardized follow-up protocol was used. Patients who were still in active bracing or had inadequate follow-up were excluded. Results During the study period, 376 patients started bracing, with 241 (93.7% males) having sufficient data to assess outcomes (170 FMF, 71 Trulife). Bracing succeeded in 217 patients (90%). Of 24 patients who failed, the majority (17) were due to non-compliance. There were no significant differences in pressure of correction (FMF 5.27 +/- 1.59 vs. Trulife 4.99 +/- 1.62 psi, p = .219), or any other characteristics between the groups. Bracing success (FMF 89% vs. Trulife 93%, p=.329) and active bracing duration (5.41 +/- 3.52 vs. 5.37 +/- 4.28 months, p=.944) were similar between the two groups. Use of the Trulife brace resulted in a cost savings of CAD$198,800. Conclusion Bracing for pectus carinatum is highly successful. A simple self-adjustable brace resulted in similar success rate and bracing duration, when compared to a pressure-guided orthotist-adjusted brace, and was associated with significant cost savings.