In situ device (ISD) and circular disposable device (CDD) are used for optimizing male circumcision (MC), but evidence to explore the characteristics of these two devices is insufficient. In order to explore this issue systematically and provide reliable evidence, ten published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the safety and efficacy of ISDs and CDDs were included (involving 4649 men). Moderate quality of the RCTs included was found after assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were processed in stata 13.0 and AIDDS v1.16.6 respectively. According to the outcomes that were statistically significant in both pairwise and network meta-analyses, ISD was found to have less intraoperative blood loss (IB), less operative time (OT) and less incidence of wound bleeding (WB) than conventional circumcision (CC); ISD was found to have less WB but more wound healing time (WHT) than CDD; CDD was found to have less IB and less OT than CC. CDD tended to have the best wound healing condition and least pain experience; ISD tended to have the least IB, least OT, least WB, and highest satisfaction rate. With their own superiorities in many aspects, CDD and ISD are both safe and effective devices for optimizing MC.