Purpose This study compared Gavi®, an automated system for the equilibration and dehydration steps of vitrification, and a manual vitrification procedure in terms of effects on clinical outcomes. Methods The authors retrospectively compared survival rate, and clinical and perinatal outcomes after vitrified‐thawed single blastocyst transfer between Gavi® (G method) in 398 cases and Cryotop® (C method) in 208 cases. Results With C and G methods, survival rates were 98.6% (208/211) and 99.3% (398/401), total pregnancy rates were 34.3% (72/208) and 33.4% (133/398), and total miscarriage rates were 22.2% (16/72) and 24.8% (33/133), respectively. Among women <35 years old, pregnancy rates were 41.1% (30/73) and 40.5% (62/153) and miscarriage rates were 13.3% (4/30) and 16.1% (10/62) with C and G methods, respectively. Among women ≥35 years old, pregnancy rates were 31.1% (42/135) and 29.0% (71/245) and miscarriage rates were 28.6% (12/42) and 32.4% (23/71) with C and G methods, respectively. C and G methods showed no significant differences in any trials, including gestational age, cesarean section rate, or birthweight (P > .05 each). Conclusions Gavi® showed comparable clinical outcomes to the manual vitrification method and can be considered an alternative vitrification procedure in assisted reproductive technology.