Disputes are inherent and inevitable in every construction project. Disputes should be resolved efficiently and effectively to minimise the negative impacts on the project and parties involved. Mediation is a wise choice in resolving construction disputes compared to litigation due to its benefits. However, the utilisation of mediation in the Malaysian construction industry is still low. This may be mainly due to the confidence issue of the construction stakeholders in mediation. The mediation styles that are mainly used in Malaysia are facilitative and evaluative. Both styles are different in the intervention extent of the mediator and thus their suitability and effectiveness in settling construction disputes are different. This paper intends to identify the types of disputes that are suitable for facilitative and evaluative mediation styles in construction and to determine the effectiveness of dispute settlement using facilitative and evaluative mediation styles in construction. The data is collected through qualitative research methods through multiple case studies via semi-structured interviews. The data is analysed by using content analysis. The finding shows that parties are more confident adopting evaluative mediation for settling construction disputes that involve contractual, technical, and tort or negligence disputes compared to facilitative mediation. Evaluative mediation is found to be more satisfactory than facilitative mediation in the aspects of time, cost, parties’ relationship, and settlement or outcome in the settlement of construction disputes. This paper informs the construction players in considering which mediation styles for settling their disputes amicably, efficiently, and effectively.