Availability of a single source review of once-daily fixed-dose single tablet regimen (STR) and multiple tablet fixed-dose regimen (MTR) would optimally inform healthcare providers and policy makers involved in the management of population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature to compare patient adherence, clinical, and cost outcomes of STR to MTR.Published literature in English between 2005 and 2014 was searched using Embase, PubMed (Medline in-process), and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases. Two-level screening was undertaken by 2 independent researchers to finalize articles for evidence synthesis. Adherence, efficacy, safety, tolerability, healthcare resource use (HRU), and costs were assessed comparing STR to MTR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity examined using meta-regression.Thirty-five articles were identified for qualitative evidence synthesis, of which 9 had quantifiable data for meta-analysis (4 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies). Patients on STR were significantly more adherent when compared to patients on MTR of any frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 2.37 [95% CI: 1.68, 3.35], P < 0.001; 4 studies), twice-daily MTR (OR: 2.53 [95% CI: 1.13, 5.66], P = 0.02; 2 studies), and once-daily MTR (OR: 1.81 [95% CI: 1.15, 2.84], P = 0.01; 2 studies). The relative risk (RR) for viral load suppression at 48 weeks was higher (RR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.15], P = .0003; 3 studies) while RR of grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities was lower among patients on STR (RR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.94], P = 0.02; 2 studies). Changes in CD4 count at 48 weeks, any severe adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 to 4 AEs, mortality, and tolerability were found comparable between STR and MTR. Several studies reported significant reduction in HRU and costs among STR group versus MTR.Study depicted comparable tolerability, safety (All-SAE and Grade 3–4 AE), and mortality and fewer Grade 3 to 4 lab abnormalities and better viral load suppression and adherence among patients on FDC-containing STR versus MTR; literature depicted favorable HRU and costs for STRs.These findings may help decision makers especially in resource-poor settings to plan for optimal HIV disease management when the choice of both STRs and MTRs are available.