Following the first implantation of a percutaneous valve in 2002, two of the leading manufacturers of biological valve prostheses developed percutaneous aortic platforms, which have promoted transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In the last decade, both companies have funded six randomized studies grouping patients according to surgical risk and comparing the results between the two therapies. None of these studies has demonstrated the superiority of one technique over the other in terms of 5-year mortality. In general, patients who received percutaneous valves suffered a higher incidence of the need for pacemaker implantation, perivalvular leaks, and vascular complications, while surgical patients suffered more bleeding and atrial fibrillation. Following these results, the use of TAVI in young and low-risk patients has exponentially increased.