Data on whether different transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices and delivery approaches can achieve equally favorable outcomes when performed by a single heart team are scarce. We sought to compare the performance and short-term outcomes of three different TAVR devices - self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve (MCV), mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific), and balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN XT (SXT) - for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in a single large-volume center in Taiwan.We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent TAVR for the treatment of severe AS. Clinical outcomes were reported following Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) criteria. The composite primary endpoint was combined all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or disabling stroke within 180 days.A total of 231 patients (MCV n=112, Lotus n=18, and SXT n=101) were included. The device and procedural success rates were similar among all three TAVR devices. At 30 days, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, periprocedural MI, stroke, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) stage 2/3, or VARC-2 composite early safety endpoints. There was no difference among groups in rate of primary endpoint within 180 days. Lack of procedural success, presence of acute coronary occlusion during TAVR, and presence of AKI stage 3 after TAVR were independent predictors of adverse outcomes.TAVR using MCV, Lotus, or SXT was associated with similar 30-day and 180-day clinical outcomes. The presence of periprocedural complications were main determinants of short-term adverse outcomes.