Background: The optimal technique for the shaft of humerus fractures is a contentious issue. Several techniques from the conservative approach to nailing and MIPPO and ORIF have been in use with varying success. The current study tried to evaluate the MIPPO technique versus ORIF with DCP in mid-shaft humerus fractures based on the overall outcomes. Methods: The fractures were classified based on the AO classification system into 3 types where type A was simple, spiral, transverse, and oblique fractures, type B included spiral, bending, and fragmented fractures while type C included complex fractures of the humeral shaft. All the operations were performed by the same surgeon. The fractures which extended to shoulder and elbow joins, preoperative radial nerve injuries, and pathological fractures were excluded. The patients were randomly allotted into two groups MIPPO or ORIF using computer-generated random numbers. Results: Based on the AO classification of fractures Type A was commonly found fracture in n=20(50%) of all cases followed by type B and type C fractures were found in n=10(25%) cases each. DASH questionnaire at the end of 3 months follow-up the dash scores in MIPPO were 19.5 ± 10.2 versus ORIF 20.15 ± 11.4. At the end of one year, the scores were 8.5 ± 4.2 and 8.33 ± 3.8 respectively. The study of complications shows in the MIPPO group n=2 cases were with complications which included infection in one case and non-union in one case. Conclusion: minimal percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) technique is superior to ORIF because of the shorter union time, lower rates of complications, and good functional outcome which is similar to traditional ORIF. The quicker healing time makes patients go back to their routine activities early as compared to ORIF. Therefore, MIPPO must be preferably used in feasible cases of shaft of humerus fractures.