Endoscopic resection (ER) has been widely accepted to treat early gastric cancer (EGC) in place of surgical resection (SR). The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a comprehensive comparison between the two methods.Four literature databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, were searched for studies that compared ER with SR to treat EGC. In this meta-analysis, primary and secondary endpoints were compared between the two groups. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included operation-related death, local recurrence, metachronous lesions, procedure-related complication, bleeding, hospital stay, operation time, and cost.Nineteen studies consisting of a total of 6118 patients were identified and selected for evaluation. Meta-analysis showed that long-term outcomes of ER versus SR for EGC were comparable in terms of 5-year OS (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.02), DSS (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08), DFS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05), and RFS (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01). However, ER had shorter operation time (standardized mean difference [SMD] -3.39, 95% CI -3.58 to 3.20), hospital stay (SMD -2.86, 95% CI -4.02 to -1.69), lower costs (SMD -5.30, 95% CI -10.37 to -0.22), and fewer procedure-related complications (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.65) compared to SR. Nevertheless, ER had higher incidences of local recurrence (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02) and metachronous lesions (RR 6.81, 95% CI 3.80-12.19).Endoscopic resection was associated with similar long-term outcomes and considerable advantages concerning operation time, hospital stay, costs, and complications, compared with SR, and was also associated with disadvantages such as higher incidence of local recurrence and metachronous lesions. Further high-quality studies from more countries are required to confirm these results.