Purpose: To evaluate the surface roughness of six composites polished with four different polishing systems. Materials and methods: Cylindrical resin specimens were prepared for each different composite group of nanohybrid (Clearfil Majestic Esthetic®, G-aenial A'CHORD®, and Simplishade®) and microhybrid (Amaris®, Herculite®, and APX®), resulting in a total of ninety-six resin cylinders. Each cylinder was drilled to create five wells of 3 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. Each composite group size was 80 and was divided into four subgroups. The first subgroup was polished with the Sof Lex® system, the second subgroup with the Diapol Twist® system, the third subgroup with the Diacomp Plus® system, and the fourth subgroup with the Identoflex Ceramic Polish® system. Half of the samples from each subgroup (n = 10) would undergo an additional polishing step using a diamond paste. The results were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. Results: Amaris® composite had significantly higher roughness than the other composites, both with and without polishing paste (PP) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in roughness (p = 0.660) for both nanohybrid and microhybrid composites, indicating that their average roughness values were similar. Both types of composite and the finishing/polishing system were significant (p < 0.001) factors influencing roughness. Conclusion: Diamond particle polishers yield better polishing results on composites than aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃) particle polishers. There is no significant difference in roughness between micro- and nanohybrid composites. Therefore, clinicians should focus on polishing systems instead of composite types. The use of PP slightly improves surface roughness.