In this article, the author analyses the confluences and discrepancies between the integral personalism of Burgos and Wojtyla and the analogical personalism of Mauricio Beuchot, in response to a writing by the latter. Powerful points of confluence appear: the personalist approach of an ontological nature, epistemology and the theory of interpretation, the need for ontology, the way of understanding the subject, the conception of interpersonality, the assessment of the naturalistic fallacy, etc. But disagreements also appear: knowledge of the individual, relevance of analogy, conception of freedom, etc., which depend on the weight given to the Aristotelian-Thomistic position, greater in Beuchot and much less in integral personalism. Consequently, the author proposes an alliance between both positions, but not a complete fusion as there is no agreement on important philosophical points.