Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety between soft-channel and hard-channel minimally invasive operations in patients with basal ganglial hemorrhage. Methods A single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed in 78 patients with the first incidence of basal ganglial hemorrhage who were admitted to our hospital from April 2012 to March 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either soft-channel (n=39) or hard-channel (n=39) minimally invasive operations. The primary observation indices were the incidence of postoperative complications, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at 3 months after treatment, and mortality rate.Results There were no significant differences in all the following indices between the two groups: incidence rates of pneumocephalus (0.00% vs 0.00%, P=1.00), recurrent hemorrhage (5.13% vs 7.69%, P=0.664), secondary intracranial hematoma (2.56% vs 5.13%, P=0.556), intracranial infection (0.00% vs 0.00%, P=1.00), cerebrospinal fluid leakage (2.56% vs 2.56%, P=1.000), mortality rate (2.56% vs 2.56%, P=1.000), and the GOS score at 3 months after treatment (P=0.993). Conclusions The soft-channel and hard-channel minimally invasive operations are equally effective in treating patients with basal ganglial hemorrhage.