Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the standard treatment for patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies. Only approximately 25% of siblings are HLA-matched, and thus alternative donors-unrelated or haploidentical-are usually the only options available. This meta-analysis aimed to compare haploidentical HSCT with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide and unrelated donor (URD) HSCT. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for pertinent studies indexed between 2008 and 2018. Twenty observational studies (with a total of 1783 haploidentical HSCT recipients and 6077 URD HSCT recipients) were included. Results for overall survival, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and relapse incidence were pooled. Measures of association used were hazard ratios and risk differences. The median age was 51 years for haploidentical transplant recipients and 52 years for URD transplant recipients. Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts were more frequent in the URD transplant recipients (85%) than in the haploidentical transplant recipients (31%). Overall survival was not different between the 2 groups. NRM was lower for haploidentical transplantation. All forms of GVHD (acute grades II-IV and III-IV and moderate, severe, and extensive chronic) were lower with haploidentical donor HSCT. The risk of chronic GVHD was fairly proportional to the differential use of PBSC grafts across studies, however. All included studies were retrospective, representing the major limitation of this meta-analysis. In conclusion, haploidentical HSCT for hematologic malignancies achieved the same overall survival as URD HSCT, with a lower incidence of GVHD and NRM. The increased frequency of PBSC use in the unrelated donor group could partially explain the higher cGVHD rate. Haploidentical transplantation with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide should strongly be considered as the first option for adult patients with hematologic malignancies who do not have matched sibling donors in experienced centers. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (65790).