Objective To compare the effectiveness of the newly designed continuous-focus electronic low vision aids with optical low vision aids in low vision rehabilitation. Methods In a prospective case-control study， 19 low vision patients and 14 blind patients used the optical low vision aids and the newly designed continuous-focus electronic low vision aids， respectively， while testing near visual acuity and reading newspapers. Near visual acuity， reading speed and reading duration were recorded and compared using a paired t test. Results The difference in near visual acuity was significant （t=-2.392， P＜0.05） for all patients when optical low vision aids were compared to near continuous-focus electronic aids. For blind patients and low vision patients， the difference in near visual acuity was also significant （t=-7.433， -8.721， P＜0.01）. The difference in reading speed was significant （t=-4.290， -6.728， P＜0.01） for all patients and blind patients when using optical low vision aids and near continuous-focus electronic low vision aids. The difference was not statistically significant for low vision patients alone （t=-1.534， P＞0.05）. For all patients， whether blind or low vision patients， the difference in reading duration was statistically significant （t=-8.211， -6.137， -6.007， P＜0.01） when using the optical low vision aids and near continuous-focus electronic low vision aids. Conclusion The newly designed continuous-focus electronic low vision aid is more effective in improving patients′ near visual acuity and reading ability.