This study evaluatedSpodumene theLepidolite characterizationLithium andLeaching agents comparative leachingLeaching of lithiumLithium from pegmatitic minerals lepidoliteLepidolite and spodumeneSpodumene. Structural analyses by X-ray diffraction (XRD) confirmed lepidoliteLepidolite as the primary lithiumLithium-bearing phase, associated with muscovite and andradite, while spodumeneSpodumene was identified along with traces of B2O3 and MgO. Digital morphological and elemental analyses corroborated these identifications, revealing lamellar surfaces in lepidoliteLepidolite and granular to prismatic crystals in spodumeneSpodumene. LeachingLeaching experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions (30 °C, 800 rpm, 37 µm, pulp density 1 g·L−1), employing mineral acids, organic acids, amino acids, and saltsSalts. In lepidoliteLepidolite, sulfuric acid achieved lithiumLithium recoveries above 80%, followed by oxalic acid (~70%), confirming the effectiveness of acidic media in disrupting its silicate framework. In contrast, α-spodumeneSpodumene exhibited limited reactivity, with maximum recoveries of ~ 30% under malic acid, underscoring the need for prior activation stages (thermal conversion or alternative treatments). The results highlight the decisive influence of mineralogy and leaching agentsLeaching agents on lithiumLithium extractionExtraction efficiency, emphasizing that lepidoliteLepidolite is more amenable to direct hydrometallurgical processingHydrometallurgical processing, whereas spodumeneSpodumene requires innovative strategies to enable its industrial utilization.