Objectives: Asians are smaller than Europeans and North Americans, but aortic valve replacement (AVR) in small patients has not been examined. We aimed to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of AVR between small and non-small patients. Methods: We retrospectively divided 173 patients who underwent AVR into small (S, n = 95) and non-small (NS, n = 78) groups according to body surface area (≤1.6 in men, ≤1.5 in women) and analyzed differences in baseline characteristics, procedural and post-procedural variables, and survival. Results: Mean age differed significantly between the S and NS groups (71.9 ± 11.2 vs. 66.2 ± 9.8 years), as did the proportion of women (60.0% vs. 24.4%). Implanted valves (19.6 ± 1.6 mm vs. 20.7 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller and more bioprosthetic valves (57.9% vs. 41.0%) were used in the S group. Effective orifice area index and the rate of moderate and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch were not significantly different. No significant intergroup differences were found in hospitalization duration, 30-day mortality, survival rates, or valve related complications. Conclusions: Small patients were older and the proportion of women was higher. The implanted aortic valves were smaller and more were biological prostheses. However, mortality rate did not differ and short- and mid-term outcomes were safe and favorable.