Abstract Objective Endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm repair (EPAR) is increasingly used over open surgical repair (OPAR). The purpose of this study was to analyze the available literature on their comparative outcomes. Methods The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify studies comparing OPAR and EPAR. Studies with only one treatment and fewer than five patients were excluded. Demographics and outcomes were collected. Bias risk was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were computed from random-effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian-Laird algorithm. Results A total of 14 studies were identified encompassing 4880 popliteal artery aneurysm repairs (OPAR, 3915; EPAR, 1210) during the last decade. OPAR patients were younger (standard mean difference, −0.798 −0.798 to −1.108; P  < .001) and more likely to have worse tibial runoff (odds ratio OR, 1.949 (1.15-3.31); P  = .013) than EPAR patients. OPAR had higher odds of wound complications (OR, 5.182 2.191-12.256; P  < .001) and lower odds of thrombotic complications (OR, 0.362 0.155-0.848; P  < .001). OPAR had longer length of stay (standardized mean difference, 2.158 1.225-3.090; P  < .001) and fewer reinterventions (OR, 0.275 0.166-0.454; P  < .001). Primary patency was better for OPAR at 1 year and 3 years (relative risk, 0.607 P  = .01 and 0.580 P  = .006, respectively). There was no difference in secondary patency at 1 year and 3 years (0.770 P  = .458 and 0.642 P  = .073, respectively). Conclusions EPAR has a lower wound complication rate and shorter length of hospital stay compared with OPAR. This comes at the cost of inferior primary patency but not secondary patency out to 3 years. Studies reporting long-term outcomes are lacking and necessary.