Background: Compared to percutaneous surgery, open repair of Achilles tendon rupture has been associated with a greater rate of wound complications. On the other hand, percutaneous repair has been related to a greater risk of rerupture and sural nerve injury in several investigations. Purposes: As far as function and cosmesis were concerned, we compared the two types of repairs in the following ways: (1) muscular strength and ankle ROM; (2) calf and ankle perimeter; (3) single heel rise tests and work return. Methods: A multicentered based non-randomized quasi-experimental prospective study was performed in Joypurhat 250 bed District Hospital, Rajshahi, Bangladesh, from June 2019 to December 2020. Percutaneous Achilles tendon repair was performed on 17 patients, while open Achilles’ tendon repair was performed on 15 of the 32 surgically treated patients. As a result of this, all patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol. The minimum follow-up was six months (mean, 18 months; range, 6–48 months). Results: There were no significant differences in calf and ankle circumference or in plantar flexor strength across groups. Patients who underwent open versus percutaneous repair had a lengthier return-to-work period (5.6 months versus 2.8 months). The open repair group's mean scar length was higher (9.5 cm versus 2.9 cm). Those in the percutaneous group had a more attractive look than those in the other groups. In the open repair group, two wound complications and one rerupture were discovered. An individual in the percutaneous repair group had an incident of deep vein thrombosis. Within six months of surgery, all problems had happened. Patients with nerve damage were not found during our study. Conclusions: Percutaneous repair is functionally equivalent to open repair, but it is more aesthetically pleasing, has fewer wound problems and does not appear to raise the risk of rerupture.