OBJECTIVES:  (i) to showcase the main updates of new polish HTA methodological guidelines (2016) versus previously issued (2009) and to (ii) benchmark them to NICE guide in terms of clarity and level of details. METHODS:  An analysis of key differences between the new and old AHTAPol methodological guidelines was carried out based on a published document. Then, similarities and peculiarities versus NICE guide for methods were explored, topic-by-topic, looking at the clarity and level of details necessary in transparent and impartial appraisal process. RESULTS:  New polish HTA methodological guidelines introduce the need to define study design in the scoping and to justify the selection of outcomes in the decision problem. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool replaced the Jadad scale in the assessment of the quality of RCTs. Certain requirements were clarified and further elaborated in a more instructive way i.e. data synthesis, in-direct comparison and the approach to economic modelling. Joint patient and payer perspective needs to undertaken for technologies entailing co-payment. These updates are considered as bringing closer the polish guidelines to the NICE guide in terms of clarity and level of details. Nonetheless, there still are requirements which are discussed superficially e.g. measuring and valuing health effects or sources of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS:  The interest in harnessing HTA in Poland is growing since last decade with major milestones being the establishment of the national agency (2005) and issuing HTA guidelines. New guidelines with their more exhaustive approach seems to greater adhere to western HTA standards for methods in terms of clarity and level of details which is of key importance for a non-arbitrary and transparent HTA appraisal and enables more substantive appeal process. This positive trend coupled with planned novel of the reimbursement law could contribute to laying ground for bolstering direct linking between HTA and pricing & reimbursement decisions.