Is url.com/path/ better than url.com/path.html?

I was talking to a buddy and he took a look at my site and he said the only thing he would change is the url extensions.

For example my site has

url.com/porfolio.html

He says I should have it like

url.com/portfolio/

Is there any difference when it comes to SEO when it comes to how these are? I always thought there wasnt. He just said it was ugly but I wanted to know if it will benefit SEO wise having the way he suggested.

Doesn't matter. Personally I agree it's ugly, but it has no effect in raking the site at all.

I agree as well its ugly but it has got not effects on the pr so does not matter any ways.

No difference to Google but /portfolio/ is easier on the eyes and easier to remember. You'll need to enable Apache's mod_rewrite if you're running a dynamic CMS.

url.com/portfolio/ is better; html is old algorithm for Google. He like CMS: Wordpress, Joomla...