The present study is a cross-cultural, corpus-based, genre-based study. The main objective of the study is to examine the use of metadiscourse in student academic writing and examine the possible variations in the use and distribution patterns of both interactive and interactional metadiscourse between the non-native and native speakers of English. To that aim, two comparable corpora of argumentative essays written by non-native and native English speakers are compared. The overall results show that that the non-native speakers tend to use metadiscourse markers more frequently than the native speakers, though not significantly so. A shared characteristic among the non-native and native writers is a relatively low lexical variation in the use of metadiscourse, indicating tendency to reuse specific markers, rather than diversifying their usage. With respect to preferences for interactive versus interactional metadiscourse categories, another notable parallel emerges in the shared emphasis on interactive metadiscourse. The results show that the non-native corpus demonstrates a more frequent use of interactive metadiscourse while the native corpus demonstrates a more frequent use of interactional metadiscourse. Although the difference in the use of both interactive and interactional metadiscourse is not significant between the two groups of speakers, this contrast still highlights differences in the two groups’ rhetorical strategies. Another parallel trend between the two corpora is evident in the order of frequency of interactive and interactional metadiscourse categories, with transition markers being most common among interactive categories and hedges among interactional categories. However, the non-native writers use transition markers and frame markers more frequently than the native writers, while selfmention markers are more common in the native speakers’ writing. With respect to distribution patterns across individual essays, a noticeable distinction emerges in a more balanced use of all interactive markers by the non-native writers and a more balanced use of the interactional category of hedges by the native speakers. Differences in distribution patterns also reveal that while the native writers distribute interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers more or less evenly throughout their essays, the non-native writers exhibit an intriguing preference for using both interactive and interactional markers more frequently in the concluding paragraph. Additionally, the analysis of distribution patterns of interactive metadiscourse categories shows no significant differences between the two groups of speakers apart from the use of transition markers which are significantly more frequently used by the non-native speakers in the body and conclusion paragraphs. Frame markers are another category where the non-native writers exhibit a significantly higher frequency consistently across all three paragraphs. In terms of distribution patterns of interactional metadiscourse categories, the results reveal significant discrepancies. While the non-native speakers employ hedges more frequently in the introduction paragraph, the use of hedges is more balanced throughout all three paragraphs by the native writers. Engagement markers display a considerably higher frequency in the body paragraph in the native speakers’ essays compared to the non-native speakers’ essays. Self-mention markers also show notable differences, with the native writers using them more frequently in the introduction and body paragraphs, while the non-native writers prominently use them in the concluding paragraph. The study also highlights disparities the particular linguistic items employed to realize metadiscourse functions, particularly in the use of frame markers, engagement markers, hedges, and self-mention markers. The non-native speakers rely more heavily on a limited set of frame markers and lack engagement markers. Both groups prefer generalizing statements and maintaining objectivity by using impersonal forms and avoiding self-representation. The pronounced scarcity of self-representation in the non-native writing as compared to the native writing is speculated to be influenced by cultural factors and educational guidelines emphasizing objectivity. In sum, this research provides a comprehensive examination of similarities and differences in the frequency and distribution patterns of metadiscourse markers between the non-native and native speakers and how these variations impact the structural and rhetorical elements of argumentative essays. The study is likely to motivate further research into academic writing conventions in L2 English and their comparison with those in L1 English.