Aim: To compare the hemodynamic changes (heart rate and blood pressure) associated with intubation using a Video Laryngoscope versus a Macintosh Laryngoscope and to evaluate the time taken for intubation and associated adverse events.Material and Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled study enrolled 120 adult patients aged 18–60 years, classified as ASA physical status I–II, undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group V (Video Laryngoscope) and Group M (Macintosh Laryngoscope), with 60 patients in each group. Hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-intubation. The primary outcome was the change in hemodynamic parameters, while secondary outcomes included time taken for intubation and adverse events. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.Results: The baseline demographics were comparable between the two groups. Heart rate and blood pressure increased transiently after intubation in both groups but were slightly lower in Group V at all intervals, though the differences were not statistically significant. At 1 minute post-intubation, heart rate was 82.45 ± 5.60 bpm in Group V versus 83.75 ± 5.75 bpm in Group M (p = 0.65). Similarly, systolic blood pressure peaked at 140.90 ± 7.85 mmHg in Group V and 143.10 ± 8.10 mmHg in Group M (p = 0.60). The mean time taken for intubation was significantly shorter in Group V (18.25 ± 2.50 seconds) compared to Group M (22.80 ± 2.80 seconds). Adverse events, including arrhythmias (1.67% in Group V vs. 3.33% in Group M), desaturation (0% in Group V vs. 1.67% in Group M), and minor airway trauma (3.33% in Group V vs. 6.67% in Group M), were fewer in Group V.Conclusion: The Video Laryngoscope demonstrated a marginally better hemodynamic profile, shorter intubation times, and fewer adverse events compared to the Macintosh Laryngoscope. Although the hemodynamic differences were not statistically significant, the findings suggest that video laryngoscopy is a safer and more efficient alternative, particularly in high-risk patients.