Hypertension is one of the most frequent non-inherited risks to health that contributes to cardiovascular disease. Whereas the effects of reducing blood pressure are clear-cut, it is debatable what the optimal blood pressure level should be maintained. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare intensive blood pressure control with standard blood pressure control regarding cardiovascular outcomes, specifically focusing on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We searched electronic databases comprehensively (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from inception up to March 2025 to find randomized controlled trials comparing intensive control of systolic blood pressure with standard control. The primary outcome was MACE, a composite measure including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects to measure risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our analysis incorporated 37,249 subjects from 12 randomized controlled trials. Intensive blood pressure control significantly decreased the odds of MACE (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88) compared to standard management. Notable reductions were also observed in cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90), stroke (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90), and heart failure (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61-0.88). However, intensive management was associated with higher risks of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte imbalance, and acute kidney injury. Overall, our results indicate that achieving lower blood pressure targets yields significant cardiovascular benefits, particularly in reducing MACE, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and heart failure. However, these advantages must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse events. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on patient characteristics, risk factors, and preferences. Additionally, moderate heterogeneity was noted across studies, and the risk of bias was assessed, revealing good methodological quality overall.