Cryotherapy and compression are frequently used treatments for acute injury and post-operative healing, but the pricing of these treatments are a major concern in today's healthcare world. A common cryotherapy modality used following orthopedic surgeries or injuries is the GameReady which circulates ice water through a sleeve while compressing the area, however, it is quite expensive (~$4000). A relatively new option for cooling and compression is a device called Hyperice, which is a sleeve that has fans attached to blow cold air, and is less expensive (~$400). In this study, we compared the two modalities for effectiveness in reducing intramuscular temperature. We inserted a thermocouple into the largest girth of the subject's lower leg (1 cm deep to the layer of subcutaneous fat) and measured the decrease in temperature due during a 30-minute treatment and during 25 minutes of rewarming after the treatment was removed. 20 subjects volunteered to participate in this randomized, cross-over trial (10 males, 10 females, age=24.65 ± 2.7 years, height= 173.86 ± 9.83 cm, weight= 78.22 ±16.17 kg). There was a statistically significant difference between the two treatments over time, F(11,209)=9.08, p=0.001, observed power= 0.947. By 5 minutes into the treatment, there were statistically significant differences between the devices, which continued throughout the entire treatment and rewarming phase, with the GameReady causing larger decreases in intramuscular temperatures. We also saw a clinically significant difference (2.1℃) between the two treatments at most of the time points. The GameReady lowered the intramuscular temperature more than the hyperice did, indicating that it is more effective, but it is also more expensive. Future research should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of other cryotherapy/compression modalities.