PurposeThe purpose of this prospective randomized clinical trial is to compare the clinical outcomes of three injections of leucocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) to a single dose of autologous microfragmented adipose tissue (AMAT) in patients with mild osteoarthritis at a two-year follow-up.MethodsEighty symptomatic knees in fifty patients (mean age: 62.38 ± 11.88 years) with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 to 2 osteoarthritis were non blinded, randomly allocated into two equal groups. Group 1 consisted of 40 knees that received autologous LP-PRP + HA; Group 2 consisted of 40 knees treated with a single dose of AMAT injection. The outcomes were measured by Tegner, Marx, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 (T1), 12 (T2), and 24 (T3) months. Adverse events were recorded at each follow-up timepoint. To assess score differences among subjects of the same gender and age, a subgroup analysis was performed.ResultsBoth groups had significant clinical and functional improvement at 6, 12, and 24 months (p< 0.05). Comparing the two groups, the AMAT groups showed significantly higher pre-operative Marx score (3.35 ± 4.91 vs. 1.78 ± 3.91) and VAS score (5.03 ± 2.02 vs. 3.85 ± 1.68) (p< 0.05), higher VAS (3.89 ± 2.51 vs. 2.64 ± 2.00) atT2and KOOS-ADL (79.60 ± 20.20 vs. 65.68 ± 23.62), and lower KOOS-Sports (50.30 ± 30.15 vs. 68.35 ± 30.39) at T3(p< 0.05). No patient from either group had experienced major adverse effects. In the LP-PRP group 12 (30%) patients presented swelling, redness, and mild pain for one day after injection and two patients had synovitis for two days and required paracetamol and local ice. In AMAT group 5 (12.5%) patients had ecchymosis and bruising at the fat aspiration site for three days.ConclusionAMAT did not show significant superior clinical improvement compared with three LP-PRP combined with HA injections in terms of functional improvement at different follow-up points. Both procedures were safe with no major complications reporting good results at mid-term follow-up, improving knee function, pain, and quality of live regardless of age and gender.Level of evidenceLevel I—Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00590-022-03356-2.