Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the deployment of telehealth services to treat patients recovering from the disease. Objectives: Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Pulmonary Telerehabilitation (PTR) with fully remote versus hybrid (remote and face-to-face) supervision. Methods: Clinical, prospective, interventional, randomized study carried out at a university hospital (Brazil) and approved by the institution's ethics committee. The study was conducted with patients that have been hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and presented a six-minute walking distance (6MWD)<400m or a reduction in SpO2?4% during the six-minute walk test performed after 90 days of discharge. Participants were randomized to PTR with fully remote supervision (G1) or hybrid supervision (G2). Efficacy endpoints were 6MWD and quality of life (QoL) (SF-36). PTR included structured exercises under remote supervision over 12 weeks, 3 sessions per week. Patients were evaluated every 3 weeks aiming to improve their tolerance to exercise, at the end and after 3 months of the PTR. SF-36 was performed at the beginning and at the end of the PTR. Results: 30 out of 50 patients who started the PTR completed it: 13 in G1, 17 in G2. The initial 6MWD was similar between G1 (389m) vs G2(380m) (p=0.92). Both groups had their QoL scores improved (physical component, p<0.02; emotional component, p<0.05);  6MWD also increased in both groups (p<0.001) with similar magnitude increases (G1=126m, G2=135m), p=0.8815.  Conclusion: The PTR was effective in improving functional capacity and QoL in the studied patients, and there was no difference between the supervision modalities.