This systematic review examines the evidence supporting dual-factor models of mental health, which propose that mental health encompasses two interrelated but distinct dimensions: psychopathology and well-being. The review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? The study was conducted using PRISMA guidelines and databases such as Web-of-science, Scopus, and MEDLINE. A total of 85 manuscripts were included, which tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. The results revealed psychometric substantiation for the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, with 85% of the manuscripts providing evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies classified participants into four groups: Complete Mental Health (high well-being and low psychopathology), Symptomatic but Content (high well-being and high psychopathology), Vulnerable (low well-being and low psychopathology), and Troubled (low well-being and high psychopathology). The Complete Mental Health group was found to be the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group over time. The factors associated with mental health status groups include school-related outcomes, supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. School-related outcomes, such as academic achievement and engagement, were the most frequently explored, followed by supportive relationships and sociodemographic characteristics. Individual attributes, such as personality and locus of control, were also investigated, with some evidence suggesting that well-adjusted individuals show lower difficulties in their locus of control. The review highlights the importance of considering both dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. It suggests that fostering well-being is crucial for improving mental health outcomes, and that interventions should focus on promoting well-being rather than solely reducing symptoms. The review also emphasizes the need for further cross-cultural evidence and longitudinal studies to better understand the complex trajectories of mental health over time.This systematic review examines the evidence supporting dual-factor models of mental health, which propose that mental health encompasses two interrelated but distinct dimensions: psychopathology and well-being. The review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? The study was conducted using PRISMA guidelines and databases such as Web-of-science, Scopus, and MEDLINE. A total of 85 manuscripts were included, which tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. The results revealed psychometric substantiation for the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, with 85% of the manuscripts providing evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies classified participants into four groups: Complete Mental Health (high well-being and low psychopathology), Symptomatic but Content (high well-being and high psychopathology), Vulnerable (low well-being and low psychopathology), and Troubled (low well-being and high psychopathology). The Complete Mental Health group was found to be the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group over time. The factors associated with mental health status groups include school-related outcomes, supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. School-related outcomes, such as academic achievement and engagement, were the most frequently explored, followed by supportive relationships and sociodemographic characteristics. Individual attributes, such as personality and locus of control, were also investigated, with some evidence suggesting that well-adjusted individuals show lower difficulties in their locus of control. The review highlights the importance of considering both dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. It suggests that fostering well-being is crucial for improving mental health outcomes, and that interventions should focus on promoting well-being rather than solely reducing symptoms. The review also emphasizes the need for further cross-cultural evidence and longitudinal studies to better understand the complex trajectories of mental health over time.