OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate vs. mometasone furoate in the treatment of ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients in Mexico.   METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate vs. mometasone furoate. Patients initiated on treatment either completed initial therapy or switched to second line therapy due to non-response. Probability of a switch and resource use was based on expert panel and literature.  Costs were based on local drug acquisition costs, local cost estimates for outpatient and hospitalization. Effectiveness was defined as the net improvement in Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) at 12 weeks from Keith PK. 2009 study. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Mexican health care system and all costs are reported in 2010 US dollars. RESULTS: The corresponding health effects were 0.47 net improvement TOSS for fluticaone furoate and 0.31 for mometasone furoate regimen.  The mean total cost of the fluticaone furoate regimen was $ 627 compared with $ 827 for the furoate mometasone regimen. Treatment with fluticasone furoate compared to treatment with mometasone furoate was less costly and resulted in a greater net improvement of TOSS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost savings observed were maintained over a wide range of alternative values for costs and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of fluticasone furoate over mometasone furoate because of both lower costs and greater efficacy. Cost savings with fluticasone furoate were attributable to lower drug acquisition costs. In addition, a net improvement in ocular symptoms may be expected in allergic rhinitis patients.