Abstract Background Anastomotic strictures occur in up to 38% of patients after ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA). We sought to compare the safety, effectiveness, and durability of mechanical dilation using a Hegar dilator to endoscopic through-the-scope balloon dilation (EBD) among IPAA patients with a rectal or ileoanal anastomotic stricture. Methods We identified adult patients with an IPAA for ulcerative colitis (UC) who underwent a pouchoscopy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, at a single institution. We compared the effectiveness (median maximum diameter of dilation [MMD]), safety, and durability of mechanical and balloon dilation using standard statistical comparisons. Results A total 74 patients had a stricture at the ileoanal anastomosis and underwent at least 1 mechanical or balloon dilation. The MMD with mechanical dilation was 19 (interquartile range [IQR], 18-20) mm for the first dilation and 20 (IQR, 18-20) mm for the second and third dilations. With balloon dilation, the MMD was 12 (IQR, 12-18) mm for the first dilation, 15 (IQR, 12-16.5) mm for the second dilation, and 18 (IQR, 15-18.5) mm for the third dilation. Patients undergoing mechanical dilation experienced a longer duration to second dilation (median 191 days vs 53 days: P < .001), with no difference in complications such as bleeding or perforation noted. Conclusions Among patients with ileoanal and rectal strictures, mechanical and balloon approaches to dilation demonstrated similar safety profiles and effectiveness. Mechanical dilation with Hegar dilators appears to be an effective and safe approach to the treatment of distal strictures after IPAA.