Background and objectives: Stakeholders of cultural heritage and their social relations play a prominent role in their recognition and conservation. Therefore, the attitude of these stakeholders also has a direct impact on this matter. Based on this, the current research aim to compare the attitude of "owners of historical houses revivaled to residential use in Yazd" and "cultural heritage experts" in relation to the revitalization process; In such a way that with this comparison, the commonalities and differences of the attitudes of these stakeholders are identified for planning in revitalization.
Materials and Methods: This research is based on the grounded theory approach for qualitative attitude measurement mixed with comparative comparison; using semi-structured questioning. Owners of historical houses  to residential use and experts of the cultural heritage department. Two groups of stakeholders have been considered in this research; Owners of historical houses revitalized to residential use and experts of the cultural heritage department.
Results and conclusion: The findings of this research have been obtained according to the questions raised in 6 main axes, which are:  1- Definition of revitalization 2- Goal and expectation of revitalization 3- Challenges of revitalization 4- Proposal for revitalization 5- Persons responsible for revitalization 6- Proposed participatory system for revitalization. The result of the research shows that in the 3 main axes "definition of revitalization", "goal and expectation of revitalization" and "challenges of revitalization", the divergence of attitudes and In the 3 main axes of "proposal for revitalization", "persons responsible for revitalization" and "participatory system proposed for revitalization", the convergence of attitudes can be seen in the two stakeholder groups. With this comparative comparison, finally, 7 suggestions have been presented to improve the quality of the revitalization process and reduce the conflict between stakeholders in revitalization: 1-Education of the owners, 2- Application of support mechanisms for capital return, 3- Increasing the efficiency of the cultural heritage administration, 4- Improving the infrastructure of the historical fabric, 5- Supporting the presence of natives, 6- Acceptance of duty in the first place by the government and in the second place by the people, 7-Participation of the involved organs under the leadership of the Cultural Heritage Department.