Introduction Recent studies have shown that rhythm control does not provide additional benefit over rate control in terms of morbidity or mortality and is less cost effective in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It remains to be determined if any of the treatment strategies should be favored on the basis of the quality of life (QoL) or functional capacity. Objectives This HOT CAFE substudy was conducted to compare the functional status of patients with persistent AF assigned either to rate or rhythm control strategy. Patients and methods We enrolled 205 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [11.2] years) with persistent AF who were randomly assigned either to rate or rhythm control strategies. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, intensity of arrhythmia‑related symptoms, exercise tolerance, and QoL were analyzed. Results After a mean (SD) of 1.7 (0.4) years, the NYHA class and QoL improved in both groups. Both strategies lead to improvement in AF‑related symptoms. Treadmill test duration and maximal workload increased over time in both groups. In terms of NYHA class improvement, rhythm control was superior to rate control in patients with AF and hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% CI, 0.98-3.65; P = 0.055) and in those with moderate HF (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.03-4.06; P = 0.04). When success was considered as left ventricular function improvement, the rhythm‑control strategy also proved to be superior in patients with hypertension (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.21-5.74; P = 0.01) and those with NYHA class II or III (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.25-9.85; P <0.001). Conclusions Rate- and rhythm‑control strategies improved functional status in patients with persistent AF. However, rhythm control might be more appropriate for patients with AF and hypertension and those with moderate HF.