The importance of research evaluation for scientific development, resource allocation, and policy development has increased over the past decade. Researchers have used bibliometrics and scientometrics to measure research performance and gain a better understanding of knowledge progress. In bibliometrics, scholarly productivity is measured using quantitative measures such as publication counts, citations, and journal impact. In Scientometrics, advanced techniques, including co-citation analysis, network mapping, and knowledge visualization, are used to analyze collaboration networks, intellectual links, and the evolution of scientific fields. This study presents a comparative overview of both approaches, highlighting their conceptual foundations, methodological differences, and practical applications. It discusses the strengths and limitations of each method and provides guidance for the selection of suitable tools for research evaluation. Future directions, such as altmetrics, open science practices, and artificial intelligence, are examined for their potential to improve transparency, inclusiveness, and accuracy in measuring scientific impact.