Abstract: To systematically clarify the core differences between domestic and international research trajectories on firm innovation ecosystems, a comparative perspective was adopted in this study. Both bibliometric and qualitative analytical methods were comprehensively employed. Bibliometric analyses were conducted based on data sourced from the Web of Science (503 SSCI papers) and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (525 CSSCI papers). Furthermore, 595 frontier papers published between 2023 and 2025 were supplementarily incorporated for qualitative extension. Systematic comparisons were carried out across multiple dimensions, including research foci, hot topics, and evolutionary logics. The results indicate that foreign mainstream research originates from open innovation and benchmark practices such as Apple’s iOS system, following a logic of “phenomenon observation-construct refinement-practice expansion” and undergoing three waves of research. Currently, foreign studies are framed by the open, dynamic, and complex attributes of innovation ecosystems, with two core domains being emphasized: digital platforms and digital servitization. In contrast, domestic research originates from technological catch-up contexts focusing on individual firm innovation activities, following a logic of “theory introduction-local adaptation-system construction” and evolving through two major stages: technological catch-up and digital empowerment. At present, domestic studies are guided by the pursuit of high-level scientific and technological self-reliance, grounded in value co-creation theory and synergy theory, and centered around independent innovation of core firms and the embeddedness of SMEs. The evolution of domestic topics is found to be deeply aligned with China's strategic progression from technological catch-up to independent innovation, and further to high-level scientific and technological self-reliance. Significant differences between domestic and international research are identified in terms of perspectives, underlying logics, resource orientations, and capability requirements, which are considered to reserve substantial space for the construction of China's independent knowledge system. Future research directions are suggested to be deepened in areas such as the generative and evolutionary mechanisms of ecosystems, AI-enabled governance, and innovation support for high-level scientific and technological self-reliance.