It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 ("T2") high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for T2-high asthma.To conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in PubMed, Embase, or CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1), and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). (PROSPERO CRD42021232084) RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk 0.63, 95% credible intervals [CI] 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab; and larger improvements in FEV1 compared to mepolizumab (mean difference, MD, 66, CI -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD, 62, CI -22 to 150), though the CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved ACQ the most but was not significantly different from tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs. mepolizumab, MD, 0.14, CI -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV1 by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had90% chance for improving FEV1 by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab, although below clinical thresholds.