This study evaluates the 5-year clinical performance of Class II restorations performed with different bulk-fill restorative materials. In the study, Class II restorations performed with Tetric Bulk-Fill (TBF), Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), and Equia Forte Fil (EF) were evaluated. One hundred-nineteen restorations were included in the study. Restorations were assessed during the 6th month, 1st, 2nd, and 5th year. Cochran Q, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were used for statistical analysis. In the 5th year, significant differences were observed in terms of retention, color match, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, and anatomical form in all materials. There was a significant difference between EF and bulk-fill composites only in terms of retention and anatomical form. EF was significantly less successful than bulk-fill composites with regard to retention and anatomical form, but bulk-fill composites have shown similar clinical performance. EF cannot be an alternative to bulk-fill composites for Class II restorations.