Background: Existing videolaryngoscopes do not meet the needs, budgets, and cleaning protocols of low- and middle-income countries. To solve these problems, a new videolaryngoscope, the Goodscope, has been developed which is less expensive, reusable and easy to clean. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Goodscope compared with a commonly used videolaryngoscope, the GlideScope, when used by experienced anaesthetists and residents in anaesthesia in both a normal and difficult airway scenario. Methods: Participants randomly intubated the manikin four times using both the Goodscope and the GlideScope twice in a normal and a difficult airway scenario. The primary endpoint was time to successful intubation. Secondary endpoints were time to glottic view, time to ventilation, number of intubation attempts, successful intubation rate, and ease of intubation. Results: A total of 73 participants were included in this study. The primary endpoint, time to successful intubation, showed no statistically significant difference between the Goodscope and GlideScope in both the normal (median Goodscope 10.3 s, inter-quartile range (IQR) 8.5, 12.2 vs GlideScope 10.1 s, IQR 8.4, 13.6, P = 0.614), and difficult scenario (median Goodscope 18.5 s, IQR 14.3, 25.3 vs GlideScope 18.4 s, IQR 13.7, 24.2, P = 0.238). Similarly, no significant differences between the two videolaryngoscopes were identified for all secondary endpoints in both scenarios. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the Goodscope is non-inferior to the GlideScope since no significant differences between the Goodscope and the GlideScope were identified for all primary and secondary endpoints. Therefore, this study contributes to proving the concept of an affordable reusable videolaryngoscope without compromising on quality.