To provide suggestions for future researchers to select and optimize sham acupuncture reporting guidelines in acupuncture clinical trials. Through qualitative analysis, we compared the basic information and concrete contents between Acupuncture Controls gUideline for Reporting humAn Trials and Experiments (ACURATE) and Sham Acupuncture REporting guidelines in clinical trials (SHARE) developed by researchers from China and Korea. In addition, the similarities and differences of the two guidelines were illustrated through a specific case. We found that the two guidelines had their own characteristics and emphasis in content, but both emphasized the reports of detailed information and background factors of sham acupuncture compared with the previous STRICTA and TIDieR-Placebo checklist. In terms of item division, we found that the ACURATE split the same topic into several items to emphasize the importance of each item content. SHARE emphasized the comprehensive reports of sham acupuncture by combining several items into a single item. In terms of item content, ACURATE also focused on combination therapy, the information regarding sham acupuncture provided to participants, and any differences in treatment settings between versus/sham acupuncture, which had some referential meaning for setting sham acupuncture control. SHARE also focused on sham acupuncture detailed information, practitioner, and modifications, etc. Case analysis showed that there were some “not reported” or “partially reported” items in both guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers can use the above two guidelines to complement and learn from each other to report sham acupuncture. In addition, it is necessary for researchers to verify the operability and practicability of the above two guidelines, and provide suggestions for optimizing and updating them in the future.