Background/Aims: Various expanded criteria (EC) for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been proposed to avoid the narrow nature of the Milan criteria (MC). To investigate which EC predicts more favorable outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: A database search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify studies comparing OS and RFS between patients within the MC and those exceeding the MC but within the EC. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects NMA and validated in an in-house cohort of 1,008 LT recipients. Results: Among 22,466 articles identified, 35 studies with 45 pairwise comparisons were included in the NMA along with 8 different EC. The University of California San Francisco (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19–1.71), Up-to-Seven (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15–1.97), and Hangzhou criteria (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.11–2.57) showed inferior OS to the MC. The MC ranked highest for both OS and RFS, followed by Metroticket 2.0 for OS and the Asan criteria for RFS. In the validation cohort, both Metroticket 2.0 and AFP model yielded more favorable HCC-specific mortality than other EC. Conclusions Several EC, of which those of Metroticket 2.0 were the best, yielded comparable outcomes to the MC. AFP-based EC such as Metroticket 2.0 and AFP model appeared to be useful in both the NMA and the validation cohort, suggesting a potential role in identifying selected low-risk patients beyond the MC.