Two commonly used treatment planning systems (TPS) are compared for the planning of spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The main purpose is to highlight relative advantages and disadvantages of each system and propose a methodologic approach for comparisons. Twenty clinical plans were inversely planned with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) each using 9 to 11 beams, referred to as IMRT_P. The prescription dose was 24 Gy in 2 fractions, and the plans were generated following our institutional protocol using the Pinnacle v9.2. Each case was replanned using a 2-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) approach, referred as VMAT_P. CT and structure sets were DICOM exported to Monaco v5.10 and planned in 2 different ways: IMRT (IMRT_M) and VMAT (VMAT_M) using the same prescription dose. Dose volume histograms (DVH) and other dose statistics of planning target volumes (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) were analyzed and compared between plans. The gradient index (GI = ratio of 50% isodose volume to prescribed isodose volume) was used to measure dose fall-off outside of the PTV. Another metric - Gradient Index Inner (GI = the rate (in Gy/mm) - at which the dose changes from the level of the spinal cord/thecal sac toward the prescription dose) was developed and compared. All plans were considered clinically acceptable by institutional guidelines and achieved all of the OAR dose constraints. VMAT_M and IMRT_M showed comparable dose statistics for the PTV when compared to VMAT_P and IMRT_P, respectively. For IMRT plans, the median GI was 1.88 Gy/mm vs 1.52 Gy/mm for IMRT_M and IMRT_P respectively (p< 0.001). All other IMRT metrics were statistically similar except for the PTV maximum dose (D), which was higher for IMRT_M than IMRT_P (median 30.7 Gy vs 29.0 Gy, p< 0.001). For VMAT plans, only PTV D showed a statistical different between VMAT_M and VMAT_P of median 12.7 Gy vs 9.7 Gy (p< 0.001). In terms of beam sequencing parameters, the number of monitor units was statistically higher for VMAT_P compared to VMAT_M (median = 6764 vs 5376) whereas the number of segments for IMRT_M was statistically greater than IMRT_P (median = 155 vs 73). We were able to generate clinically acceptable plans for different types of spine SBRT using 2 different TPS. We used an evaluation strategy involving coverage, conformity, and dose gradient that can compared between TPS.