This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium laser technologies (HoL-Ts) and photoselective greenlight vaporization (PVP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to perform a meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2019. Functional outcomes, perioperative parameters, and complications were included and analyzed. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to perform all analyses. A total of six articles composed of 2014 patients were included in this review. In comparison with PVP, HoL-Ts had a better performance in 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax (P = 0.02, but I(2) = 81%), with less postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) (MD = -33.85, 95% CI -52.13 to -15.57, P = 0.0003) and less total energy used (MD = -31.66, 95% CI -58.99 to -4.33, P = 0.02). Moreover, HoL-Ts had a relatively lower risk of conversion rate (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60, P = 0.01) associated with enough enucleation and less intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analysis of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) versus PVP suggested that HoLEP presented better results in 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year Qmax with less PVR, less energy consumption, and lower conversion rate. Compared with PVP, HoL-Ts had higher 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax, less PVR, and less total energy consumption with a relatively lower risk of conversion rate. In subgroup analyses, HoLEP had shown better results in accordance with all HoL-Ts. Nevertheless, well-designed RCTs including overall functional indicators are required to confirm our findings.