Aim: To study and compare the hemodynamic effects of etomidate and propofol when used in controlled hypertensive patients as an induction agent. Materials and methods: It is a prospective randomized double-blind comparative study. After Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 60 patients with controlled hypertension undergoing surgery under general anesthesia and willing to participate in the study were included, i.e., the patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Results: The hemodynamic parameters like pulse rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were well maintained when etomidate was used as an induction agent when compared with propofol. There were no statistically significant side effects like pain on injection, nausea–vomiting, or myoclonus in either of the groups. Conclusion: IV etomidate 0.3 mg/kg provides better control of heart rate (HR), SBP, DBP, and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) during induction, intubation, and after that throughout the procedure when compared with IV propofol 2 mg/kg in controlled hypertensive patients undergoing general anesthesia. Clinical significance: Considering the common use of propofol and etomidate as induction agents and the importance of a patient's hemodynamic stability, it is of utmost importance to choose an induction agent carefully in hypertensive patients to prevent more damage to their cardiovascular system.