OBJECTIVES: To elicit patient preferences for benefits, risks, and weight of evidence associated with hepatitis B treatments. METHODS: Adults in 5 countries (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Turkey) with a self-reported physician diagnosis of hepatitis B completed a web-enabled, choice-format, conjoint-analysis survey.  The survey presented patients with a series of 12 trade-off questions, each including a pair of hypothetical hepatitis B medication profiles. Each profile was defined by how long the medicine has been studied (weight of evidence), chance that the medicine will work well for 5 years (long-term efficacy), 5-year fracture risk, 5-year risk of kidney disease, and cost. Trade-off questions were based on predetermined experimental design with known statistical properties. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate a preference weight for each attribute level and the mean relative importance of each attribute.  RESULTS: 560 subjects completed the survey. Patients actively traded between efficacy, side-effect risks, and weight of evidence among the hypothetical hepatitis B medication profiles. On an importance-weight scale where 0 is the least important outcome and 10 is the most important outcome, the 5-year risk of kidney disease was the most important attribute to patients over the range of levels included in the survey [95% CI: 7.8-12.2]. The remaining attributes were  ranked in decreasing order of importance as: chance that the medicine will work well for 5 years (8.9 [95%CI: 7.1-10.7]), how long the medicine has been studied (8.2 [95%CI: 7.6-8.8]), and 5-year fracture risk (5.8 [95%CI: 3.6-8.0]).  CONCLUSIONS: Although long-term efficacy is important to hepatitis B patients, the 5-year risk of kidney disease,in particular, also influence patients’ treatment choices. Patients are willing to make tradeoffs between efficacy, side-effect risks, and weight of evidence among hepatitis B treatments.