In recent years, expert determination has become a proceeding similar in many ways to arbitration, as the role of the expert has developed from an ‘advisor’ to a 'decision maker'. The so-called expert proceeding has become a powerful and cost-effective alternative to arbitration, due to its speed and simplicity. However, expert decisions and arbitral awards are treated differently when parties seek recognition and enforcement before state courts. Arbitral awards are treated with deference and their enforcement is effective. In contrast, expert decisions are, in most cases, merely considered contractually binding. This article explores the differences and similarities between expert proceedings and arbitration to identify when expert decisions can enjoy a similar level of effectiveness and similar legal privileges available to arbitral awards.