Many interstitial species were first described as widely distributed, often cosmopolitan or amphi-oceanic, contrasting with descriptions of a sedentary life style and the general absence of pelagic dispersal stages. These inconsistencies became known as the “meiofauna paradox”. In this review, we present a literature review investigating these inconsistencies and address the assumptions of the meiofauna paradox. We break the paradox down to two aspects including species distribution and dispersal. Focusing on distribution, we demonstrate that wide distributions are seldom given and false records likely stem from biological phenomena like stasis or recent speciation. These phenomena account for morphological similarity, ultimately represented by the pronounced occurrence of cryptic species with restricted distribution ranges. Additionally, taxonomic artefacts such as the erroneous application of taxonomic keys contribute to the report of widely distributed species. Considering dispersal, we point out the mismatch between traditional assumptions of meiofaunal sedentarism and growing experimental and empirical evidences suggesting higher dispersal potential. These evidences include not only indications for dispersal by pelagic stages, but further consider ecological and life-history traits in shaping distribution ranges. We conclude that the meiofauna paradox sensu stricto most likely does not exist and provide a roadmap for future research, suggesting a focus on morphological similarity and marine connectivity. Meiofaunal research should concentrate on evolutionary factors resulting in morphological similarity, improving the taxonomic resolution of species complexes and conducting more sophisticated experimental experiments to meiofaunal dispersal. In all cases, meiofaunal research will benefit from high-throughput sequencing such as genome scanning approaches, metagenomics or metatranscriptomics.