Background: Adequate nutrition (receiving ≥80% of estimated energy requirements [EER]) is important in preventing and treating malnutrition and improving clinical outcomes. In conventional rate-based tube feeding (RBTF), patients are prescribed a constant infusion rate. Per volume-based tube feeding (VBTF), the hourly infusion rate can be increased (max 150 mL/h) to make up for feeding deficits, ensuring patients receive the targeted 24-hour volume. This study compared clinical outcomes between patients on VBTF vs RBTF. Methods: Data were collected from medical charts of patients within a 5-month period. Inclusion criteria included patients ≥18 years of age who were admitted to an intensive care unit and receiving enteral nutrition for at least 24 hours. Results: More patients on VBTF (n = 77; 55.8% females, age 59.9 ± 18.1 years, body mass index [BMI] 29.7 ± 17.7 kg/m2) received adequate nutrition (VBTF: 88.3%, 93.1 ± 11.3% EER; RBTF: 36.4%, 71.3 ± 35.8% EER) than those on RBTF (n = 206; 35.9% females, age 61 ± 15 years, BMI 28.3 ± 6.5 kg/m2) during the first crucial 7 days of nutrition support. No significant differences in adverse outcomes (hyperglycemia P = 0.052, hypoglycemia P = 0.168, emesis P = 0.084, diarrhea P = 0.470, and high gastric output P = 0.096) were found between the groups. Conclusion: VBTF can help promote nutrition adequacy. This study provides evidence for clinicians to be more proactive and aggressive in providing tube feeding in the critical care setting when patients are deemed appropriate for VBTF.