AbstractNetwork meta‐analysis (NMA) is a statistical procedure to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite the added complexity of performing an NMA compared with the traditional pairwise meta‐analysis, under proper assumptions the NMA can lead to more efficient estimates on the comparisons of interventions by combining and contrasting the direct and indirect evidence into a form of evidence that can be used to underpin treatment guidelines. Two broad classes of NMA methods are commonly used in practice: the contrast‐based (CB‐NMA) and the arm‐based (AB‐NMA) models. While CB‐NMA only focuses on the relative effects by assuming fixed intercepts, the AB‐NMA offers greater flexibility on the estimands, including both the absolute and relative effects by assuming random intercepts. A major criticism of the AB‐NMA, on which we aim to elaborate in this paper, is that it does not retain randomization within trials, which may introduce bias in the estimated relative effects in some scenarios. This criticism was drawn under the implicit assumption that a given relative effect is transportable, in which case the data generating mechanism favors the inference based on CB‐NMA, which models the relative effect. In this article, we aim to review, summarize, and elaborate on the underlying assumptions, similarities and differences, and also the advantages and disadvantages, between CB‐NMA and AB‐NMA methods. As indirect treatment comparison is susceptible to risk of bias no matter which approach is taken, it is important to consider both approaches in practice as complementary sensitivity analyses and to provide the totality of evidence from the data.This article is categorized under: Statistical Models > Bayesian Models Statistical Models > Generalized Linear Models Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Bayesian Methods and Theory