Abstract Background Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is one of the most common neurosurgical disorders and the incidence is rising. The routine treatment is neurosurgical hematoma evacuation, which is associated with recurrence rates up to 10–25%. In recent years, endovascular embolization of the middle meningeal artery (eMMA) has garnered much attention due to recurrence rates as low as < 5%. Several randomized controlled trials are planned or ongoing. In most of these trials, conventional neurosurgical treatment with or without adjunctive endovascular embolization is compared. The proposed trial aims to conduct a head-to-head comparison between neurosurgical and endovascular treatment as stand-alone treatments. Methods The trial is academically driven and funded within existing public healthcare systems and infrastructure. Patients with uni- or bilateral cSDH, presenting with mild-to moderate symptoms, and admitted to neurosurgery on clinical grounds will be offered participation. Subjects are randomized 1:1 between conventional neurosurgical treatment (control) and endovascular embolization of the middle meningeal artery (intervention). Primary endpoint is reoperation due to clinically and/or radiologically significant recurrence within 3 months. Secondary endpoints include safety, technical success rate, neurological disability, and quality of life. Discussion There are mounting retrospective data suggesting eMMA, as sole treatment or as an adjunctive to neurosurgery for cSDH, is safe and effective with a reoperation rate lower than neurosurgical hematoma evacuation alone. If randomized controlled trials confirm these findings, there is a potential for a paradigm shift in the treatment of cSDH where a minimally invasive procedure can replace open surgery in a large and oftentimes old and fragile patient cohort. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05267184. Registered March 4, 2022.