Background/Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition, affecting approximately 3–6% of women symptomatically and up to 50% when assessed objectively, with a lifetime surgical risk of about 13%. Sacrocolpopexy is widely regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of apical prolapse, and minimally invasive techniques have increasingly supplanted open surgery due to reduced perioperative morbidity. Although laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is effective, it is technically challenging and associated with a substantial learning curve. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) provides enhanced three-dimensional visualization and instrument dexterity, albeit at increased costs. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, perioperative outcomes, and costs of these two surgical approaches. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 2 June 2025, with an updated search performed on 19 October 2026, for comparative studies of LSC and RASC in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse. Randomized and comparative observational studies were eligible. The primary outcome was operative time; secondary outcomes included total costs, objective cure rate, complication rate, reoperation rate, total blood loss, length of stay, and mesh-related outcomes. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as mean differences and dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals using random-effects meta-analysis; heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Results: A total of 31 studies involving 15,783 patients (5417 LSC and 10,366 RASC) were included, comprising three randomized controlled trials and 28 non-randomized studies. RASC was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 20.81 min, 95% CI 10.61–31.01; p < 0.001; I2 = 96%) and higher costs (USD 5583.05, 95% CI 1449.91–9716.2; p = 0.008; I2 = 94%). RASC was associated with a significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD −30.27 mL, 95% CI −44.12 to −16.42; p < 0.0001; I2 = 97%), although the clinical relevance of this difference is questionable. No statistically significant differences were observed in postoperative POP-Q point C (MD −0.05 cm, 95% CI −0.45 − 0.35; p = 0.32; I2 = 74%), objective cure rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.28–3.39; p = 0.97; I2 = 69%), overall complications (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83–1.69; p = 0.71; I2 = 0%), or reoperation rates (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.61–6.55; p = 0.25; I2 = 51%). Conclusions: No statistically significant differences in effectiveness or safety outcomes were identified between LSC and RASC. RASC was associated with longer operative time and higher costs, while the reduction in intraoperative blood loss, although statistically significant, is of uncertain clinical significance. Further high-quality studies with extended follow-up are needed to determine whether these differences translate into meaningful clinical benefits.