Ventricular arrhythmias are dangerous heart rhythm disorders which may be life threatening and need to be treated with the help of antiarrhythmic therapies to reduce the rates of reappearance and better patient outcomes. Amiodarone, and sotalol are some of the popular antiarrhythmic drugs that are often prescribed in the treatment of the ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but the relative effectiveness and safety of these agents are still investigated in clinical trials. This paper anthropomorphic was done as a systematic review with an exploratory comparative study to determine the clinical outcomes of amiodarone and sotalol in patients with ventricular arrhythmias. An extensive literature search was conducted by the use of the largest electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to find those studies that compared the two antiarrhythmic agents. The pertinent studies were filtered based on a set of preset eligibility rules and data on the study design, patient demographics, intervention methods, and follow-up timeframe as well as reported outcomes were collected and summarized. The quality of methodology of the conducted studies was assessed with the help of standard tools. The findings were mainly summarized through qualitative synthesis because of heterogeneity in the study design, patient populations, and outcome reporting and interpreted through graphical means to demonstrate comparative outcomes. The existing evidence indicates that, the amiodarone and sotalol are effective therapeutic agents in treatment of ventricular arrhythmias though they showed differences in their efficacies and safety profiles. Amiodarone has been shown by a number of comparative studies to be effective in the prevention of recurrence of ventricular arrhythmia, but the extent of this was different in various studies. The outcome of mortality was not invariably depicting a definite survival benefit of either of the medications. In addition, adverse-effect profiles were significantly different, as amiodarone was more often linked with systemic toxicities (such as thyroid dysfunction, pulmonary toxicity and hepatic abnormalities) and sotalol was more often linked with cardiac adverse effects including QT interval prolongation and the risk of torsades de pointes. On the whole, these results indicate that both antiarrhythmic agents are still relevant therapies and the selection of treatment is to be personalized in reference to patient features and underlying cardiac pathology, as well as some risks of treatment.