Background: Four cycles of etoposide and cisplatin (EP × 4) or 3 cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP × 3) is the current standard of care for patients with good-risk testicular cancer. We sought to examine the differences in the tumor viability for patients treated with EP x 4 vs BEP x 3 in the (PC-RPLND) specimens. Methods: The Indiana University (IU) Testicular Cancer Database was queried to identify IGCCCG good-risk patients who received EP × 4 or BEP × 3 induction chemotherapy followed by PC-RPLND. The primary endpoint was PC-RPLND cancer viability vs teratoma presence. Results: A total of 291 patients treated between 1988 and 2017 met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 28 (14.6-70.8) years. Primary histology was non-seminoma in 92.8%. Induction chemotherapy consisted of EP × 4 in 45 (15.5%) patients and BEP × 3 in 246 (84.5%). One hundred and sixty-six patients (57.2%) received chemotherapy outside the IU and were subsequently referred for PC-RPLND. Using a logistic regression model after accounting for age and time to surgery, patients who received EP x 4 have approximately 2.5 times the odds of having residual cancer viability in the PC-RPLND (Odds ratio 2.548, 95% CI 1.130-5.744, p = 0.024) and no significant difference in the odds of having teratoma (Odds Ratio 0.669, 95% CI 0.343-1.303, p = 0.237). Conclusions: Our retrospective study has shown differences in pathological outcomes for good risk GCT patients treated with EP x 4 vs BEP x 3. Patients who received BEPx3 had less residual cancer in the RP specimen at the time of PC-RPLND compared to EPx4 after adjusting for age and time to surgery. We prefer to use BEPx3 as first line chemotherapy in good-risk patients unless there is a contraindication for bleomycin.