Along with the large-scale "Grain for Green" in the Loess Plateau, vegetation restoration significantly affected ecosystem functions. Previous studies have mostly compared the functions of a single ecosystem with different restoration methods or vegetation types, and the research on ecosystems multifunctionality needs to be strengthened urgently. We conducted an ecosystem multifunctionality study in Longtan watershed of Dingxi, Gansu Province, China, based on survey data from 38 plots, which included 3 restoration methods (native grassland, natural restoration and artificial restoration) and 6 vegetation types (Stipa bungeana grassland, Leymus secalinus grassland, Medicago sativa grassland, Caragana korshinskii shrubland, Pinus tabuliformis forestland and Armeniaca sibirica forestland), We selected 23 functional indexes related to soil nutrient storage and transformation cycle, water conservation, primary productivity, and diversity maintenance to quantify ecosystem multifunctionality by averaging approach. The results showed that (1) except for nutrient transformation and recycling, the soil single ecosystem function had significant differences among different restoration methods and vegetation types (P<0.05). The soil fertility function of artificial restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of natural restoration vegetation (P<0.05). The soil fertility of artificial restoration vegetation was in the order Caragana korshinskii shrubland, Medicago sativa grassland, Armeniaca sibirica forestland and Pinus tabuliformis forestland from high to low. The water conservation functional of natural restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of artificial restoration vegetation (P<0.05). (2) Except for plant growth strategies function, the plant single ecosystem function had significant differences among different restoration methods and vegetation types (P<0.05). The above ground primary productivity of artificial restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of natural restoration vegetation (P<0.05). The above ground primary productivity of artificial restoration vegetation was in the order Armeniaca sibirica forestland, Pinus tabuliformis forestland, Caragana korshinskii shrubland, Medicago sativa grassland from high to low. The plant nutrient absorption function of artificial restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of natural restoration vegetation (P<0.05). The plant nutrient absorption of artificial restoration vegetation was in the order Medicago sativa grassland, Caragana korshinskii shrubland, Pinus tabuliformis forestland and Armeniaca sibirica forestland from high to low. The species diversity maintenance of natural restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of artificial restoration vegetation (P<0.05). (3) Ecosystem multifunctionality had significant differences among different restoration methods and vegetation types (P<0.05). Ecosystem multifunctionality of artificial restoration vegetation was significantly higher than that of natural restoration vegetation, but the water conservation and species diversity of the artificial restoration vegetation were lower than that of the natural restoration vegetation, which was not conducive to the sustainable development of the ecosystem. It is considered that in the practice of vegetation restoration, vegetation restoration strategy should be formulated according to the different restoration objectives and the functional characteristics of each vegetation type.