Despite the efficacy of cord, doctors continue to look for alternatives for a variety of reasons. Cord packing is considered time-consuming, even for expert practitioners (2-cord technique, by definition, takes twice as long). Overzealous packing in fragile biotypes can lead to unwanted recession. Given a choice, most patients would prefer not to have cord jammed into their sulcus and avoid the reinforced anesthesia that is sometimes needed. Liquid hemostatic solutions show mixed efficacy (aluminum chloride is typically less effective than fer- ric sulfate), have an unpleasant taste, and can irritate soft tissues. Although ferric sulfate provides more predictable hemostasis than aluminum chloride, remnant ferric ions that are not cleansed away and remain embedded in dentin tubules can lead to progressive creeping stain that becomes visible through ceramic restorations, rendering them an esthetic failure over time. When manufacturers introduced cord alternatives in the form of gels and pastes, doctors were eager to try them, and I was no exception. These alternatives were met with mixed reviews. The consensus was that they were marginally effective and, as such, a convenient alternative for cases in which bleeding was not a significant problem and margins were not placed too far below the gingiva so that significant tissue displacement was not required. In due course, many doctors found their way back to cord or laser troughing strategies.