In the present study, we present comparative outcomes of radical prostatectomy after whole-gland therapy (wg-SRARP) and focal gland therapy (f-SRARP). The study assessed 339 patients who underwent salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SRARP); 145 patients who had primary focal therapy and 194 patients who had primary whole-gland treatment. SRARP was performed in all cases using a standardized technique developed at respective institutes with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System. Our primary endpoint was the comparison of the functional and oncological outcomes between the groups. Cox proportional hazard was used to study the functional and oncological outcomes. The median total operative time for f-SRARP was 18 min higher than wg-RARP (p < 0.001). Higher rates of nerve-sparing were performed in f-SRARP (focal vs whole gland; bilateral-15.2% vs 9.3%; unilateral 49% vs 28.4%; p < 0.001). wg-SRARP had higher rates of ISUP 5 (26.3% vs 19.3%; p < 0.001) and deferred ISUP score due to altered pathology (14.8% vs 0.7; p < 0.001), while f-SRARP had higher rates of ISUP 4 (11.7% vs 10.7%; p < 0.001) and ≥ pT3a (64.8% vs 51.6%; p < 0.001). Positive margins were significantly higher with f-SRARP (26.2% vs 10.3%; p < 0.001). Functional outcomes were poor in both the groups. However, postoperative continence was higher and faster in patients who had f-SRARP compared to wg-SRARP (69% vs. 54.6%; p = 0.013). We could not identify statistically significant difference in postoperative potency recovery and biochemical recurrence. We present the largest multi-institutional analyses of f-SRARP and wg-SRARP. SRARP is challenging wherein patients have adverse pathological features and increased surgical complexity irrespective of the primary treatment. Focal therapy group had higher rates of nerve-sparing, however, with increased positive surgical margins. Both groups had poor functional outcomes regardless of nerve-sparing degree, indicating significant ipsilateral and contralateral damage to tissues surrounding the prostate during primary treatment. We believe that this analysis is crucial for counseling patients regarding expected outcomes before performing a salvage treatment following ablative therapy failure.