This paper discusses the shift towards non-judicial dispute resolution processes, such as arbitration and mediation and conciliation, under Saudi law compared to Egyptian law. In the past, constitutional systems have given the judicial power the final say in resolving conflicts, but a flood of administrative lawsuits, extended litigation and growing administrative costs have made alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques necessary. In the context of economic convergence in the world, with advanced technology and to win foreign investments and make the dispute settlement process smoother, these alternatives are becoming more and more important. The main problem is the unique legal position of the state administration that has special rights and immunities in order to be able to serve the public interest. The consequences of the application of mechanisms of ADR to administrative disputes are thus of a particular nature. The methodology used in the study is descriptive analytical and comparative legal approach to examine the extent to which the Saudi and Egyptian judicial systems support these non-judicial methods without sacrificing judicial independence or the public interest. The findings show that, according to the Saudi Arbitration Law (Royal Decree No. M/34 of 1433 A.H), arbitration is well regulated and mediation is currently being worked on by the Saudi Draft Mediation Law of 2023. The concept of conciliation, which is applied in administrative contracts, is not yet incorporated into the legal system of Saudi Arabia. In contrast, the Dispute Resolution Committees under Egyptian Law No. 7 of 2000 have been instituted in the Egyptian legal landscape. The study underscores the need to reform legal frameworks to alleviate judicial burden, rationalize spending and create a secure legal environment that supports international investments and economic growth, as per Saudi Vision 2030.