General well-being, adverse effects and antihypertensive efficacy have been investigated in a double blind, parallel-group, dose-response multicentre study of diltiazem and metoprolol monotherapy for hypertension. 128 patients with primary hypertension were included from 10 participating centres. The patients were randomized to receive oral diltiazem 120–240–360 mg/day or metoprolol 50–100–200 mg/day. Each dose was given for a 4-week period as a forced titration regime. In all 119 patients, 59 and 60, respectively, on diltiazem and metoprolol completed the study protocol. There were dose-dependent reductions in supine and standing blood pressures (BP) after both diltiazem and metoprolol therapy. In the diltiazem group, supine BP was reduced by 10 (11)/10 (6) mm Hg (SBP/DBP) at the highest dose level, and the corresponding values for the metoprolol group were 7 (16)/8 (9) mm Hg (SBP/DBP). Target pressures (DBP 90 mm Hg and/or a reduction in DBP of 10%) were reached in 63% and 48% of the patients, respectively. The incidence and severity of dose-dependent adverse effects, as evaluated by spontaneous reports or open and direct questioning, did not differ between treatments. Subjective well-being, evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire, the MSE-profile, did not differ significantly between diltiazem and metoprolol therapy. However, after an initial slight deterioration, contentment and vitality tended to improve with increasing doses of diltiazem, while a dose-related deterioration in these variables was observed on metoprolol therapy. At the highest dose levels, contentment and vitality tended to be better in the diltiazem than the metoprolol group. Thus, diltiazem and metoprolol in daily doses of 120–360 mg and 50–200 mg, respectively, produce comparable and parallel reductions in supine and standing BP. However, while subjective well-being tended to improve with increasing doses of diltiazem, there was a negative trend for metoprolol. It is concluded that diltiazem, given as monotherapy to hypertensive patients, does not impair subjective well-being.