Abstract Embryo cryopreservation has been an integral part of ART for close to 40 years and vitrification has boosted overall ART efficacy and safety. Recently, there has been a vivid scientific discussion on whether elective cryopreservation of all embryos (freeze-all) should be pursued for most patients, with a fresh embryo transfer taking place only in selected cases. In terms of efficacy, the available evidence suggests that the freeze-all strategy leads to higher live birth rates after the first embryo transfer compared to the conventional strategy in high responders, while there is no difference in normal responders. There is no evidence to suggest that the freeze-all strategy is inferior to the conventional strategy of fresh transfer when comparing cumulative live birth rates using data from all available randomized controlled trials. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is significantly reduced in the freeze-all policy. However, regarding obstetric complications and neonatal outcomes, the evidence suggests that each strategy is associated with certain risks and, therefore, there is no approach that could be unequivocally accepted as safer. Similarly, limited evidence does not support the notion that patients would be universally against freeze-all owing to the inevitable delay in pregnancy achievement. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of freeze-all is likely to vary in different settings and there have been studies supporting that this policy can be, under certain conditions, cost-effective. Adoption of the freeze-all policy can also allow for more flexible treatment strategies that have the potential to increase efficacy, reduce cost and make treatment easier for patients and clinics. Importantly, freeze-all does not require the use of any experimental technologies, further training of personnel or the costly acquisition of new equipment. For these reasons, transitioning to the freeze-all policy for most patients appears to be the next logical step in ART.