Introduction: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) pile up a well-defined objective, comprehensive literature searches, and pre-determined criteria for study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction and finally synthesis of results from the available evidence on a particular topic. ROBIS and AMSTAR are the tools for assessing the methodological quality or the risk of bias (RoB) in SLRs. Objective: To assess the methodological quality of SLRs conducted on the effect of Sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine using ROBIS and AMSTAR. Methodology: A literature search was conducted in PubMed on August 2018 without any restrictions, and the references of all included reviews also searched for other relevant studies. All the SLRs assessing the efficacy and safety of sumatriptan (by any route) for the treatment of migraine were included. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the ROBIS and AMSTAR. Two authors were independently selected and assessed the quality of included reviews and disagreements were settled through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: A total of 16 out of 44 reviews were identified that met our inclusion criteria among nine were Cochrane SLRs. Nine studies considered to be low, five studies as high and two studies considered as unclear RoB using the ROBIS tool. Six studies considered to be high quality (scored 8-10), six studies graded to be low quality (3-4) and other six studies considered to be moderate quality (scored 8) using AMSTAR tool. ROBIS rates the Cochrane reviews better as the Cochrane reviews have more detailed information on the review methods which makes it easier to apply on ROBIS. Conclusion: Our research suggests that ROBIS is a more rigorous and reliable tool than AMSTAR in assessing the methodological quality of the included SLRs. We found most of the reviews are good quality as they all were the Cochrane SLRs.