Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients affected by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We also reviewed mean changes from baseline in PAE at selected follow-up points. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to May 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials on PAE were collected according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3, STATA 14, and GraphPad Prism 8. Pooled patient-reported scores and functional outcomes were calculated by using a fixed or random-effect model. Results Eleven articles met our selection criteria and ten independent patient series were included in the final analysis. Pooled estimates suggested no significant difference between TURP and PAE for patient-reported outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (2.32 (- 0.44 to 5.09)) and quality of life (0.18 (- 0.41 to 0.77)) at 12 months. PAE was less effective regarding improvements in most functional outcomes such as maximum flow rate, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen. Moreover, PAE may be associated with relatively fewer complications, lower cost, and shorter hospitalization. After the PAE procedure, the overall weighted mean differences for all outcomes except sexual health scores were significantly improved from baseline during follow-up to 24 months. Conclusion PAE is non-inferior to TURP with regard to improving patient-reported outcomes, though most functional parameters undergo more changes after TURP than after PAE. Moreover, PAE can significantly continue to relieve symptoms for 24 months without causing serious complications. Key Points PAE is as effective as TURP in improving subjective symptom scores, with fewer complications and shorter hospitalization times. PAE is inferior to TURP in the improvement of most functional outcomes. Improvements due to PAE are durable during follow-up to 24 months.