OBJECTIVES: The aims of study were 1)to determine equivalent dosages of Rosuvastin(R) and Atorvastatin(A) in the treatment of dyslipidemia, and 2)to evaluate cost-effectiveness of R vs A.  METHODS: The R and A arms of 29 RCTs with stable dose treatments for minimum 6 weeks (n=27.588) were included in the analysis. The arms with periods after titration or switch were excluded. The effectiveness parameters chosen were the pooled percent decrease in LDL-C, LDL/HDL, TC/HDL ratios and 10-years’ cardiovascular risk (CVR) based on Wilson equation. Only medication costs were calculated for R and A, since other costs directly related with dyslipidemia were assumed to be same. Dose-effect relationship was analyzed by plotting linear regression line for R and A, separately. Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) were calculated as added cost per percent decrease in lipid parameters and per absolute reduction in 10-years’ CVR. RESULTS: Equivalent clinical effectiveness of R was provided with 3.9-fold, 3.2-fold and 3.2-fold dosages of A in mg, in terms of percent decrease in LDL-C, LDL/HDL and TC/HDL ratios, respectively. Absolute 10-years’ CVR reductions with R5-40mg and A10-80mg were 4.5-6.9% and 3.7-5.7%, respectively. 1(R):2(A) dose pair was selected for cost-effectiveness analysis. The yearly medication costs were as follows: R5mg vs A10mg (€113.67** vs. €128.03), R10mg vs A20mg (€174.68 vs. 226.77€), R20mg vs. A40mg (€261.26 vs. 283.20€) and R40mg vs. A80mg (€261.26 vs. €294.68). R dominated A with regards to ICER for all effectiveness parameters. Sensitivity analysis proved that dominance of R was stable when the model was run for extreme values for R and A in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, R was found more efficacious than three times higher dose of A. R is more cost-effective than A in reducing LDL-C level, LDL-HDL and TC/HDL ratios and 10-years’ CVR reduction. **1 Euro=1.9595TL