In recent decades, brief psychotherapy approaches have gained increasing attention due to their high efficiency and effectiveness. Among these, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) and the Paradoxical Timetable Cure (PTC) model are approaches with growing evidence of effectiveness; however, a comprehensive comparative study of these two approaches has been rarely conducted. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze these two approaches in terms of theoretical foundations, treatment principles, session processes, techniques, and evidence of effectiveness.

This research was conducted using a structured narrative review method. A systematic search was performed in databases including Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Magiran, Noormags, and Elmnet using relevant Persian and English keywords. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 49 sources were selected for final analysis.

SFBT, grounded in social constructionism, focuses on solution-building through future-oriented questions and is applicable to a wide range of problems. In contrast, the PTC model, rooted in practical psychoanalysis and systems theory, directly targets the maintaining mechanisms of disorders by employing the technique of "symptom prescription" within a specific timetable. Compared to SFBT, the PTC model demonstrated shorter treatment duration (2 to 5 sessions versus 6 to 10 sessions), lower relapse rates, and greater depth of change.

Despite the significant advantages of SFBT in broad applicability and empowering nature, the PTC model appears to be a more specialized and deeper approach for treating clinical disorders, with higher efficiency and effectiveness. However, conducting randomized controlled trials to directly compare these two approaches remains essential.