OBJECTIVES: The study compares the cost-effectiveness (CE) of dexlansoprazole with other proton pump inhibitors (PPI) currently included in the Mexico National Formulary (Positive List) for treatment of erosive esophagitis (EE). METHODS: A decision tree with the 8-week temporal horizon was designed for patients over 18 with EE confirmed by endoscopy. The perspective taken is that of second-level public health institutions. Treatment alternatives modelled are dexlansoprazole 60 mg/day, esomeprazole 40 mg/day; omeprazole 20 mg/day, pantoprazole 40mg/day, rabeprazole 20 mg/day. Possible outcomes considered were healing or not healing, the latter possibly leading to surgery. Costs included in the model were treatment regimens, consult, endoscopy, surgery (when necessary), and hospitalization days (when necessary) and were taken from official or published sources. Effectiveness was measured in terms of percentage of patients with healed oesophagus. A weighted average of effectiveness was calculated for use in the model. One‑way sensitivity analyses of cost and effectiveness variables and a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of a 1000 cohorts were also conducted to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Compared to all PPIs modelled/tested, dexlansoprazole was highly dominant, being more effective (0.9270) and less costly (USD$ 1.27 per day), even when compared to omeprazole’s USD$ 0.015 per DDD. It was therefore not considered necessary to calculate the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) since these would be negative. The sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlosimulations found omeprazole to be the second-best alternative, and actually dominant in 16.7% of the MC simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Dexlansoprazole was found to be dominant compared to all PPIs evaluated for EE, being both more effective and less costly for public institutions in Mexico.