Our study aimed to assess the methodological strengths and weaknesses of erectile dysfunction clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for individuals using the AGREE II tool. Erectile dysfunction related CPGs were identified from three databases: the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Guidelines International Network, and PubMed between 2000 and 2020. We designed an independent assessment for each of the erectile dysfunction related CPGs using the AGREE II tool. Four appraisers performed these assessments. The literature search identified 8 CPGs that met our inclusion criteria. The evaluation of the AGREE II domains of each individual revealed that the median scores of domains related to applicability were quite low (39%). Also, the median scores of domains related to the rigour of development and the stakeholder involvement were relatively low (53% and 63%). We determined the highest median scores in three AGREE II domains: clarity of presentation (80.5%), editorial independence (77%), and scope and purpose (89.5%). We found that the European Association of Urology (EAU), the American Urological Association (AUA), and the British Society for Sexual Medicine (BSSM) guidelines had >60% in >4 domains and that their average AGREE II scores were over 70%. In the Canadian Diabetic Association (CDA) and the Japanese Society for Sexual Medicine (JSSM) guidelines, we found that >4 domains were >60%, but their average AGREE II scores were below 70%. The British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Urologic Association (CUA), and the Malaysian Urologic Association (MUA) guidelines had >60% in <3 domains. We highly recommended EAU, AUA and BSSM guidelines, while we moderately recommended CDA and JSSM guidelines. BMJ, CUA and MUA guidelines were weakly recommended. The quality of the guidelines for erectile dysfunction was variable according to AGREE II. We noted significant deficiencies in the methodological quality of the CPGs developed by different organisations in the areas of applicability and rigour of development.