Background Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and Results A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross‐clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio OR: 0.99 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–1.88; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 95% CI, 0.25–0.80; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 95% CI, 0.56–3.21; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 95% CI, 0.60–1.06; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 95% CI, −1.22 to −0.75; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 95% CI, 1.44–4.17; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 95% CI, 0.62–1.18; P=0.001), even during follow‐up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: −2.08 95% CI, −3.96 to −0.21; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1‐year mortality. Conclusions The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high‐risk patients.