Background: Tension-type headache (TTH) is one of the most common primary headaches. Several studies have confirmed the efficacy of acupuncture therapies for TTH, but it is uncertain which treatment is most effective. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of different acupuncture therapies for TTH using Bayesian Network Meta-analysis to provide new ideas for treating TTH. Methods: Nine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about different acupuncture therapies for TTH up to December 1, 2022. The outcome indicators analyzed in our study were total effective rate, visual analog scale (VAS), headache frequency, and safety. Pairwise meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment were performed using Review Manager 5.4. Stata 15.0 generated a network evidence plot and detected publication bias. Finally, a Bayesian network meta-analysis of the data was used by RStudio. Results: The screening process resulted in 30 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, including 2,722 patients. Most studies failed to report details of trials and were therefore assessed as unclear risks. Two studies were considered high risk because they did not report on all pre-specified outcome indicators or had incomplete data on outcome indicators. The NMA results showed that for total effective rate, bloodletting therapy had the most considerable SUCRA value (0.93156136), for VAS, head acupuncture combined with Western medicine ranked first (SUCRA = 0.89523571), and acupuncture combined with herbal medicine was the most effective in improving headache frequency (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Acupuncture can be used as one of the complementary or alternative therapies for TTH; bloodletting therapy better improves the overall symptoms of TTH, head acupuncture combined with Western medicine is more effective in reducing VAS scores, and acupuncture combined with herbal medicine seems to reduce headache frequency, but the difference is not statistically significant. Overall, acupuncture for TTH is effective with mild side effects, but future high-quality studies are still necessary. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO [CRD42022368749].