In the setting of chronic primary mitral regurgitation, the benefit of mitral valve repair over replacement is well established. However, data comparing outcomes for mitral valve surgery for endocarditis is limited. We sought to determine whether mitral valve repair offers traditional advantages over replacement in the endocarditis population. Retrospective review of our institutional mitral valve database (N=8,181) was performed between 1998 and 2019 for all adult patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery for endocarditis. Patients were stratified by mitral valve repair or replacement and propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and degree of valve damage. Overall, 267 surgeries (124 repair, 153 replacement) met inclusion criteria during the study period. Following propensity matching, the repair cohort was associated with shorter initial ventilator times (5.6 vs. 7.9 hours, p=0.05), shorter ICU (28 vs. 52 hours, p=0.03), and hospital lengths of stays (7 vs. 11 days, p<0.01). Thirty-day mortality (0% vs. 2.1%, p=0.01) and 10-year survival (88% vs. 86%, p=0.55) were similar between cohorts. Patients in the repair cohort were less likely to require repeat mitral valve intervention at our institution for recurrent endocarditis than those in the replacement cohort (0% vs. 10.6%, p=0.03). Mitral valve repair is safe, when feasible, in the setting of isolated native valve endocarditis and may provide patients faster recovery. Experienced mitral surgeons should approach this patient population with a “repair if feasible” methodology.