Background: The present study compared anatomical parameters and clinical characteristics of two subtypes of lamellar macular hole (LMH): tractional and degenerative. Methods: This retrospective chart-review study included patients who were monitored for more than 6 months after the initial diagnosis of LMH, from January 2011 to January 2018. Changes in the following morphological characteristics across the study period and between the two subtypes were assessed: the mean central foveal thickness, maximum outer retina diameter (MOD), and maximum inner retina diameter (MID). Differences in the following clinical parameters between the two conditions was also assessed: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical progression rate, rate of surgery, and mean period before surgery. Results: This study included 51 eyes of 49 patients with a mean follow-up period of 18.94 months in the study: 33 tractional eyes and 18 degenerative eyes. The difference in the mean central foveal thickness between the two groups at baseline and the end of follow-up tended toward significance. MID was not significantly different between the two subtypes at either time point. MOD was significantly different between two subtypes at baseline and the end-of-follow up (tractional, 1131.62 μm, 1358.18 μm; degenerative, 708.88 μm, 697.83 μm; p < 0.01 for both). The changes in the retinal diameters across the observation period were significantly increased in degenerative eyes, and tractional eyes featured a significant increase in MOD across the study period. BCVA was not significantly different between the two subtypes at baseline and the last follow up. Anatomical progression rate of tractional eyes ( 81.8%) was significantly higher than that of degenerative eyes (27.7%) (p = 0.01). The presence of ERM was significantly different between two subtypes (tractional, 96.9%; degenerative, 22.2%; p < 0.001). Ellipsoid defect, rate of receiving surgery, and mean observation period before surgery were not significant different between the two subtypes. Conclusion: Analyzing two LMH subtypes according to their clinical and morphologic features, the present study identified characteristics unique to each. Treatment of LMH patients will require different approaches based on the subtype exhibited by the patient.