This paper presents a comparative analysis of conventional seismic retrofitting techniques and base isolation approaches to enhance structural resilience in earthquake-prone areas. Conventional retrofitting methods are widely employed to increase a building's stiffness and overall resistance to seismic forces. In contrast, base isolation systems are designed to minimize transmitted forces by allowing the structure to move independently of ground motion, thereby reducing the dynamic responses of the superstructure. This study examines each approach’s effectiveness across key criteria, including energy dissipation, structural integrity, and cost efficiency. The findings indicate that, while conventional methods are generally more accessible and cost-effective for a broad range of existing buildings, base isolation offers superior protection for high-value or critical infrastructure, particularly where maintaining operational continuity is essential. This assessment provides insights to guide decision-making in retrofitting strategy selection, aiming to balance cost, feasibility, and structural resilience according to varying seismic risk contexts and building requirements. These insights serve as a valuable resource for engineers, planners, and policymakers in seismically active regions.