Given my four-year Computer Science degree and 4 years of work experience, is a one-year or two-year master's program better suited for my study plans?

With 48 months of hands-on experience already behind you, the question is not whether you are ready for graduate-level material, you clearly are, but whether a longer programme actually adds proportional value over a shorter one. For most continuing-track candidates at your experience level, it does not.

Why One Year Fits Your Situation

Your existing technical background changes the calculus compared with a fresh graduate choosing between the same two formats.

• Faster return to industry: Lower total tuition and living cost, and a quicker path back to a higher-level role.
• Sufficient specialisation depth: Four years of work already gave you real project experience that a shorter, focused programme can build directly on.
• Lower opportunity cost: A full two years away from a mid-level career carries a real cost in lost seniority and compensation growth.

When Two Years Is Still the Better Call

A longer programme earns its extra cost mainly when you are changing direction rather than deepening an existing one.

• Career pivot: Moving into a substantially different specialisation, for example from software development into AI research, benefits from the extra runway.
• Research or PhD track: Two-year programmes generally offer more thesis and research opportunities than compressed one-year courses.

My Advice

If you are continuing in roughly the same technical direction you have worked in for these 48 months, I would default to a one-year programme and treat the time saved as a real asset, not just a cost saving. Only choose the two-year route if you can name a specific reason, a genuine field change, a research goal, or a target country where the extra year materially improves your post-study work or immigration options.