OBJECTIVES To analyze cost-effectiveness and assses budget impact of novel BRAF inhibitors – vemurafenib and dabrafenib – in patients with MMM. METHODS In the absence of head to head data we derived a decision model from indirect comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) curves for dabrafenib and vemurafenib, from their respective clinical trials with dacarbazine as a common comparator. The model was applied to the conditions of locally-specific population data and treatment costs, including adverse events, of patients with MMM. In the model, individuals moved from progression-free state to post-progression state or death and were followed for 45 weeks. We compared vemurafenib and dabrafenib from the payers' perspective at the price level determined by international reference pricing as of December 2013 in terms of costs and progression-free life years (PFLYs). Based on the cost-effectiveness model, we carried out budget impact analysis for a scenario with vemurafenib only and a scenario with vemurafenib and dabrafenib using their projected market shares.   RESULTS Our model has shown that more than 99% of total treatment costs of MMM patients in Slovenia were due to drug costs of BRAF inhibitors in spite of the fact that treatment of associated adverse events were 5 times higher in vemurafenib than in dabrafenib, primarily due to higher incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and keratocanthoma. Treatment with dabrafenib vs. vemurafenib allowed to save €13,009 and gain 0.022 PFLY at a discount rate of 3.5%;  the sensitivity analysis showed robustness of  findings and retained dominance of dabrafenib over vemurafenib. Budget impact analysis for a 3-year period revealed that introduction of dabrafenib would save the national Sick Fund €402,000 (€5,318,000 in the scenario without dabrafenib vs. €4,916,000 in the scenario with dabrafenib). CONCLUSIONS Study results suggest that introduction of dabrafenib in Slovenia could reduce costs and improve outcomes in MMM.