Objective — to compare the results of surgical treatment in patients with genital prolapse in the use of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Subject and methods. The investigators analyzed 2 groups of women having Stages II-IV symptomatic genital prolapse (by the POP-Q classification), whose genital anatomical and functional state was evaluated before and after surgery. Group 1 consisted of 115 patients who had undergone laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in 2010—2013. Group 2 included 58 patients who had robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in 2013—2015. Results. The duration of surgery and anesthesia and the total time spent in the operating room were significantly longer in Group 2. The postoperative pain intensity was also more marked in Group 2 than that in Group 1. Intraoperative blood loss and the length of hospital stay did not differ in both groups. Twelve months after surgery, Stages III—IV recurrent anterior vaginal wall and uterine cervix prolapses were noted in 3 (5.2%) cases in Group 1 and Stage IV recurrent apical prolapse was seen in one (1.72%) case in Group 2. One (0.87%) case of protrusion of the mesh into the vagina and one (0.87%) case of dynamic ileus were diagnosed in Group 1. Both groups showed similar good anatomic and functional results. Conclusion. The advantages of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy may include manipulation accuracy, teachability, and an opportunity to work in inaccessible female pelvic areas. Its disadvantages versus conventional laparoscopic surgery are longer operating room work and more intensive postoperative pain. The length of hospitalization, as well as blood loss, complications, and anatomic and functional results did not significantly differ in the use of either sacrocolpopexy technologies. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.