Background: Characterizing the oncology provider’s role in addressing the growing epidemic of financial toxicity faced by cancer patients is of increasing importance. Advance practice providers (APPs) increasingly serve as primary providers for many cancer patients, but no studies to date have examined their perspectives and practices in addressing financial toxicity, nor compared them to that of attending physicians. Methods: We developed an 18-question electronic, anonymous survey informed by an extensive literature search regarding perspectives on the provider’s role and current practices in addressing financial toxicity. We emailed the survey to 75 attending physicians and 117 APPs at our institution’s cancer center. Responses during the study period 12/12/2018-1/31/2019 were analyzed. Results: 32 attending physicians and 28 APPs completed the survey. Response rates were higher among attending physicians (42%) compared to APPs (24%). Attending physicians were more likely than APPs to agree that providers should openly discuss cost (75% vs. 36%, p = 0.002). APPs were more likely to agree that providers should defer cost conversations to a third party (57% vs. 31%, p = 0.04) and make the same treatment recommendation regardless of cost (50% vs. 25%, p = 0.022). Use of cost-effectiveness (CE) guidelines was higher among APPs compared to attending physicians (71% vs. 31%, p = 0.0019). Awareness of out of pocket costs, frequency of referrals to financial counselors, and ranking of top barriers to cost conversations (price transparency, knowledge of resources, and time) were similar between attending physicians and APPs. Conclusions: While APPs and attending physicians differed considerably in their perspectives on the role oncology providers should take in mitigating financial toxicity, they were more consistent in current practices and identification of barriers to cost conversations. APPs were interestingly more likely to use CE guidelines than attending physicians. Higher response rates among attending physicians may reflect inherently stronger opinions regarding the provider’s role in addressing financial toxicity. Future studies should explore these differences to better inform provider-level interventions to reduce financial toxicity.