This article explores the differences between “social capital” and “network capital”, which are used in the context of network reflection. It is emphasized, that both capitals are interpretative variables and can be seen differently, depending on a semantic context. Every social structure implies branched social relations. That is why methodological tools of network approach are “convenient” for the study of social capital. In its core we find nuances of the interpretation of social capital. They depend not only on the nature of network actors but also on the researcher’s focus, on the network connections configuration or their content. Regardless of the course of the research, social capital is necessary for understanding social networks and social processes and is a result of said processes. As regards network capital, it can be defined as a form of social capital giving access to resources through interpersonal relationships (relational dimension). Defining characteristics of such relationships are trust and mutuality. However, the semantic emphasis can be transferred from the nature of relations to their modern support technologies. And so network capital appears as a measure of the value of communications maintained through telecommunication channels. The extreme position to social and network capitals suggests that social capital should be removed from the network approach and be completely replaced by the network capital. Otherwise, science denies other social forms of capital with their social characteristics. The author pays special attention to the ways of studying social networks using the theoretical capabilities of network capital in all its interpretations. The standpoint of its disregard, individualistic, and group approaches are highlighted.