Objective: To determine the most cost-effective Wet AMD treatment alternative in Mexico Methods: A decision tree with Bayesian approach and a Markov chain considering the probabilities of increasing, decreasing or maintaining visual acuity (VA) through eight health states based on VA from 20/20 to 20/400 due to the use of a pharmacological alternative, with a time horizon of 5 years and institutional perspective, were performed. The discounting rate was three percent for costs and benefits. Adverse events and their treatment costs, for every alternative were considered; costs, benefits and probabilities of transition data were estimated from the meta-analysis with available published literature, including the MARINA and ANCHOR studies, validated by a panel of Mexican experts through the Delphi technique. Study comparators examined were Ranibizumab (RAN), photodynamic therapy with Verteporfin (PDTV), pegaptanib sodium (PEG) and standard care (STD). Sensitivity analysis was one-way and probabilistic (acceptability curve, analysis of components for the ellipse method). Results: Patients using Ranibizumab get more benefits (RAN=2.71 QALY; PDTV=2.03 QALY; PEG=1.89 QALY; STD=1.78 QALY), with the lowest total cost per treatment (RAN=$43,984 USD; STD=$63,531 USD; PDTV=$83,546 USD; PEG=$92,247 USD) and the lowest cost per QALY (RAN=$16,257 USD/QALY; STD=$35,749 USD/QALY; PDTV=$41,074 USD/QALY; PEG=$48,263 USD/QALY). Incremental analysis showed Ranibizumab to be the dominant alternative. Net benefits are greater with Ranibizumab independent of willingness to pay. Acceptability curves showed absolute superiority for Ranibizumab. The confidence interval of 95% with the ellipse method showed Ranibizumab to be dominant in 95% of the cases with a willingness to pay of $924USD. The sensitivity analysis on efficiency and costs of Ranibizumab in an interval of ± 50%, was robust with the base analysis. Conclusion: Ranibizumab is the most cost-effective Wet AMD treatment alternative; it offers the greatest benefits with the lowest cost. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the base study.