Purposes : We aimed to compare the treatment efficacy of pelvic floor muscle exercises and the functional electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback method, which are being widely used as a conservative treatment method for urinary incontinence in women. We also aimed to determine the effects of those treatments on the patients' quality of life. Materials and methods : We randomly selected 90 female incontinence patients who visited our department and evenly divided them into three groups: control group, pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise group, FES-biofeedback group. They were treated for 6 weeks. The objective changes in the severity of incontinence and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of the questionnaire by Jackson( Bristol Female Urinary Symptom Questionnaire). Subjective changes of pelvic muscle contraction force were measured by perineometer. Results : Pre and post treatment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile pressure (PMC pressure) among the three groups (control, PFM exercise, FES-biofeedback) showed statistically significant differences(p=0.000). Especially, The FES-biofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure compared with other groups(p<0.001). When measured by the questionnaire, pre and post treatment changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort due to incontinence showed significant differences among the three groups, and FES-biofeedback group showed a significant decrease (p< 0.001). The level of discomfort in daily life, social activity, physical activity, personal relations and discomfort due to urinary symptoms was greatly changed. FES-biofeedback group, in particular, showed a significant decrease in discomfort after treatment. Conclusion : When PFM exercise and FES-biofeedback were compared in terms of their effects on the patients' quality of life, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than the verbal explanation of the PFM exercises or simple PFM exercises.