Existing primary evidence comparing fibular intramedullary fixation (IMF) with traditional plate fixation (PF) for the treatment of distal fibular fractures remains limited by modest sample sizes. Using a large national database, this study aims to compare use rates, fracture patterns, patient characteristics, time to surgery, complication rates, and cost between fibular IMF and PF within the United States. Adults treated with fibular IMF or PF between October 2015 and October 2021 were identified within the PearlDiver Database. The ratio of IMF-treated to PF-treated patients was tracked temporally to compare use rates. Fracture patterns were determined using fracture diagnoses within one-month preceding surgery. Further comparisons of IMF- and PF-treated groups only included patients with at least 12 months of follow-up, and patients with upper tibia or tibia shaft fractures were excluded. An analysis of cohorts matched at a 1 : 4 (IMF: PF) ratio to control for risk factors was performed to compare time to surgery, complication rates (infection, nonunion, malunion, revision, hardware removal, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis), and cost. 39329 patients (2294 IMF and 37035 PF) were identified. IMF use trended upwards relative to PF use over time. Tibia and fibula shaft fractures were the most common injuries in IMF patients versus bimalleolar and trimalleolar fractures in PF patients. A higher proportion of IMF patients had open fractures. IMF patients were younger, with higher mean ECI, fewer female patients, and higher rates of CKD. Percutaneous approaches were more common among IMF patients. There were no significant differences in time to surgery or complication rates. IMF was less costly. The popularity of IMF trended upwards across the study period. IMF was used more commonly in injuries involving higher energy trauma and soft tissue disruption. Overall, IMF patients were younger with more comorbidities. When used in similar populations, IMF appears to be a cost-effective alternative to PF.