To examine structural and electronic differences between iron and ruthenium imido complexes, a series of compounds was prepared with different phosphine basal sets. The starting material for the ruthenium complexes was Ru(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)(3) (Ru1/Ru1*), where Ar = 2,6-(Pr-i)(2)C6H3 and Ar* = 2,4,6-(Pr-i)(3)C6H2, which were prepared from cis-RuCl2 (PMe3)(4) and 2 equiv of LiNHAr/Ar*. The starting materials for the iron complexes were the analogous Fe(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)(3) species (Fe1/Fe1*), which were not isolated but could be generated in situ from FeCl2, PMe3, and LiNHAr/Ar*. With both iron and ruthenium, the PMe3 starting materials underwent phosphine replacement with chelating ligands to give new group 8 imido complexes in the +2 oxidation state. Addition of 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane (dppe) to M1/M1* gave Ru(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)(dppe) and Fe(NAr/ Ar*)(PMe3)(dppe). Addition of 1,2-bis(dimethylphosphino)ethane (dmpe) provided Ru(NAr/Ar*)(dmpe)(2). A triphos ligand, {P(Me)(2)CH2}(3) (SiBu)-Bu-t (P-t(3)), was also examined. Addition of P-t(3) to Fe1 provided Fe(NAr)(P-t(3)) (Fe4), but a similar reaction with Ru1 only gave intractable materials. Oxidation of Fe4 with AgSbF6 gave {Fe(NAr)(P-t(3))} + SbF6- (Fe4a). Oxidation of Ru2 with AgSbF6 gave the unstable cation {Ru(NAr)(PMe3)(dppe)}, which dimerized in the presence of acetonitrile via C-C bond formation at the aryl group C4 positions, affording {Ru(NAr)(PMe3) (NCMe)(dppe)}(2)(+). This suggested that there was substantial radical character in the imide pi system on oxidation and that an aromatic group substituted at the 4-position might provide greater stability. The cations {Fe(NAr*)(PMe3)(dppe)}+ (Fe2a*), {Ru(NAr*)(PMe3)(dppe)} + (Ru2a*), and Fe4a were examined by EPR spectroscopy, which suggested differences in electronic structure depending on the metal and ligand set. CASPT2 calculations on model systems for Ru2a* and Fe2a* suggested that the large differences in electronic structure are related to the energy gap between the pi-antibonding HOMO and the pi-bonding HOMO-1. Both the geometry of the phosphines, which is slightly different between the iron and ruthenium analogs, and the metal center seem to contribute to this energetic difference.