This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength and hypertrophy, exploring factors affecting outcomes. We searched Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Ovid Medline, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus from inception to July 2024. After assessing the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool, a meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the overall effect size. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the impact of different modulating factors on training effects. LL-BFR was found to be inferior to HL-RT with regard to muscle strength gains (SMD = −0.33, 95% CI: −0.49 to −0.18, p < 0.0001). However, subgroup analyses revealed that LL-BFR achieved muscle strength gains comparable to HL-RT under individualized pressure (SMD = −0.07, p = 0.56), intermittent cuff inflation (SMD = −0.07, p = 0.65), and a higher number of training sessions (SMD = −0.12, p = 0.30). No significant difference in muscle mass gains was observed between LL-BFR and HL-RT (SMD = 0.01, p = 0.94), and this conclusion remained consistent after controlling for modulating variables. HL-RT is superior to LL-BFR in enhancing muscle strength gains. Nevertheless, under appropriate conditions, including individualized pressure prescription, intermittent cuff inflation, and a higher number of training sessions, LL-BFR can achieve muscle strength gains comparable to HL-RT, emphasizing the importance of tailored training programs. Both methods exhibit similar effects on muscle mass gains, indicating that LL-BFR serves as an effective alternative for individuals who cannot perform HL-RT because of physical limitations or injury concerns.