Hope and optimism are two of the most widely researched concepts within Positive Psychology. They are trait-like thoughts about future and two kinds of future-oriented positive expectations. In fact, research found good relation between hope and optimism, suggesting substantial overlap between the two constructs. Considering that, how should we best conceptualize them? Are they separate constructs, or do they reflect the same global underlying trait? A series of studies suggest that though hope and optimism have a lot of conceptual overlap, they are two essentially different concepts. Most often, hope involves thoughts about one’s goals, including the ability to generate routes to reach goals (i.e., pathways) and the motivation to use those routes (i.e., agency); while optimism is closely relate to future orientation and defined as a stable predisposition to “believe that good rather than bad things will happen”. The core concept of hope is the goal-centered agency thought and pathways thought, while the core concept of optimism is the future-oriented positive expectancy. As a consequence, the ultimate choice between distinguishing or merging hope and optimism may well depend on whether the researcher seeks to maximize predictive accuracy or simply to summarize individuals’ future orientation. As two kinds of future-oriented positive expectancy, hope and optimism are viewed as personality traits, and share a common element: beliefs about goals, but they have divergence on the way of expecting for the future and the personal control of anticipated events. Specifically hope is related directly to the personal attainment of a specific goal, whereas optimism focuses more broadly on the expected quality of future outcomes in general. The agency of hope is similar to Bandura's efficacy expectancies and pathway is similar to outcome expectancies; while optimism is similar to outcome expectancies. Optimism theory posits that outcome expectancies determine goal-directed behavior, whereas hope theory posits that efficacy expectancies (agency) are equally necessary determinants of goal-directed behavior. There are two completely opposite views on the personal control of hope and optimism to anticipated events. One believes that optimists have a greater personal control of anticipated events than those have higher hope levels. Yet another view holds that those have higher hope levels have a greater personal control of anticipated events, and higher hope levels may represent a more internal dominant locus of control, while optimists represent an external dominant locus of control. Related studies find that, compared to optimism, hope is usually a better predictor of subjective well-being and academic achievement. Future researches should pay more attention to: (1) whether hope and optimism can integrate to an overarching trait called goal attitude? (2) To verify whether locus of control plays a moderating role in the study of hope and optimism? (3) Conduct more cross-cultural and localization studies in Eastern culture, especially the applicability of existing research conclusion in Chinese population.