Objective: The purpose of the research was to conduct a cost-effectiveness model in order to analyze the value of Pegaptanib and Ranibizumab on the basis of the information and resources from the previous studies. Methods: The costs of these modalities of AMD were calculated from published sources. The total costs included consumptions of medical resources and non-medical resources for AMD treatment. The annual unit drug costs were collected from the Red Book 2007 and were multiplied by administrations per year. The efficacy was defined as the loss of fewer than 15 letters from baseline visual acuity within a year with recommendation dosage. The analysis model was compared with placebo. We calculated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) and plotted the cost-effectiveness result. Results: With a basic decision analysis, considering the probability and costs of the three treatment options, the base estimate of one year of total cost was $13,066 per person from the pegaptanib treatment, and $31,564 for ranibizumab. The total expected cost for placebo was $3152. The result in the ICER model shows that pegaptanib costs $10,746 per year to get only about 12% improvement in effectiveness compared to placebo, while ranibizumab costs $29,244 to gain about 37% improvement over placebo. Thus, compared to placebo, the ICER is $934,433 per unit increase in effectiveness when patients are treated by pegaptanib, and $80,121 in ranibizumab. Conclusion: Based on this cost-effectiveness model, both anti-VEGF agents are costly. Ranibizumab has higher probability of success versus in pegaptanib therapy (0.7 for pegaptanib vs. 0.95 for ranibizumab). However, the price of ranibizumab is much higher than pegaptanib. The ICER model suggests that ranibizumab maybe the first consideration of anti-VEGF drugs because based on this model, the ICER of ranibizumab is lower than pegaptanib. In future studies, there should be more investigations of quality-of-life factors.