Exercise supervision enhances health and fitness improvements in clinical populations compared with unsupervised or home-based exercise, but effects of supervision type are unknown in healthy employees. Eighty-five Australian university employees (62 females; mean/SD 43.2/9.8 years) were randomized to personal (1:1; SUP, n = 28), nonpersonal (typical gym-based; NPS, n = 28) supervision or unsupervised control (CON, n = 29) exercise groups. Subjects received a 16-week individually tailored, moderate-to-high intensity aerobic and resistance exercise program completed at an onsite exercise facility (SUP and NPS) or without access to a specific exercise facility (CON). Repeated-measures ANOVA analyzed changes to cardiometabolic outcomes. Mean/SD increases to VO2 peak were greater (p<0.01) with SUP (+10.4/11.1%) vs. CON (+3.8/8.9%) but not different to NPS (+8.6/8.2%). Compared to CON (+1.7/7.7%), upper-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+12.8/8.4%; p<0.001) and NPS (+8.4/7.3%; p<0.05). Lower-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+26.3/12.7%) vs. NPS (+15.0/14.6%; p<0.05) and CON (+4.1/12.4%; p<0.001), and NPS vs. CON (p<0.01). Body fat reductions were greater with SUP (22.2/2.2%) vs. NPS (20.6/1.9%; p<0.05) and CON (20.7/1.9%; p<0.05). Access to an onsite exercise facility with personal or nonpersonal exercise supervision was important for improving several cardiometabolic outcomes, with greater improvements to lower-body strength and body composition from personal 1:1 exercise supervision.