Purpose: The growing interdisciplinary nature of medicine has prompted increased leadership by physicians, both in administration and as informal team leaders. A formal leadership curriculum is essential to best prepare trainees for these roles.1 Physician Executive Leadership (PEL) is an organization at Thomas Jefferson University that provides medical students with leadership education by facilitating sessions led by established medical experts in executive positions. Each session is rooted in 1 or more of PEL’s leadership pillars: Applied Leadership, Quality Improvement, Health Finance, Entrepreneurship/Innovation, Health Policy, and Law/Ethics. In response to COVID-19 public health precautions, PEL sessions were shifted online. Literature is contradictory on the relative benefits and harms of online coursework in a leadership curriculum; although it increases accessibility, it may decrease student engagement.2 We therefore aimed to analyze the effectiveness of in-person versus virtual PEL curriculum sessions and to determine if certain topics were better taught in-person or virtually. Method: Six hundred eighty-four total responses (from 361 first-, 226 second-, 78 third-, and 19 fourth-year medical student submissions) were collected from 24 sessions from January 2018 to May 2022, including 13 in-person (2018–2019) and 11 virtual (2020–2022) sessions. Six Applied Leadership, 4 Quality Improvement, 8 Health Finance, 5 Entrepreneurship/Innovation, 2 Health Policy, and 3 Law/Ethics sessions were assessed. Following each session, students rated changes in their engagement and comprehension of the topic area (Likert scale 1–7: 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). One-way nonparametric ANOVA and unpaired t tests were used to compare responses between the 2 curricula. Results: Health Finance engagement ratings were higher online than in-person (6.49 versus 5.85; P <.001). Similarly, Health Finance (6.31 versus 5.79; P <.01) and Care Quality sessions (6.29 versus 5.73; P <.01) demonstrated improved comprehension with online delivery, while Health Policy demonstrated the opposite trend (5.72 versus 6.64; P <.01). Overall, student engagement and comprehension following the session were nonsignificantly higher virtually compared to in-person (6.33 versus 6.21; P =.08 for engagement, and 6.22 versus 6.09; P =.09 for comprehension). Comprehension and engagement scores were not significantly affected for the remaining pillars. Medical school class of participants (MS1 through MS4) did not affect ratings. Discussion: Overall ratings for both comprehension and engagement of each event remained high (> 6.0) across pillars in-person (2018–2019) and online (2020–2022). Most notably, the Health Finance sessions scored higher in comprehension and engagement in online formats. This may be explained by the ability of students to look up clarifying information during the session. Conversely, the decline in comprehension of Health Policy may be attributed to the inability to quickly find answers to complex health policy questions online. Students may therefore benefit from directly asking questions to the experts during in-person sessions. A controlled study that compares particular events both in-person and virtually would be necessary to confirm these findings. Significance: Comprehension and engagement improvements for Health Finance sessions indicate that an online format may be better suited to teach this core leadership pillar, while the decline in comprehension of Health Policy indicates this pillar may benefit from being taught in-person. Importantly, there was not a drastic decrease in engagement nor comprehension for most pillars once sessions became virtual; therefore, the increased accessibility, availability of multimedia tools, and decreased cost (for travel, lodging, etc.) suggests virtual events may be superior to their in-person counterparts for the majority of leadership curricular events.