OBJECTIVES: To compare five oral anticoagulants (OACs) available in the UK for stroke prevention in patients suffering from non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), based on factors relevant for payers and prescribers. METHODS:  Two multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDA) were developed to compare apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and a vitamin K antagonist (VKA; i.e., warfarin) from payer and prescriber perspectives. Final evaluation models included up to ten clinical and three non-clinical criteria. The clinical criteria were ranked based on either expected changes in event mortality rates from the worst to best performing treatment, as demonstrated in clinical trials, or based on variation of health-related costs (both acute and follow-up for one year). These rankings were used to compute centroid weights. An additive model was used to combine treatment performance with centroid weights to estimate the overall value of each OAC. Probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Dabigatran was the best treatment in centroid weight analyses with 7% / 8% higher overall value than the second best performing treatment, apixaban. Dabigatran also had the highest first rank probability (72% / 70%) in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, with apixaban being second (22% / 24% first rank probability). Rivaroxaban performed worse than other non-VKA OACs, but better than VKA (both with 0% first rank probability). The results were largely insensitive to changes in model structure, although changing availability of reversal agent to be the least important criterion increased apixaban to have approximately the same overall value as dabigatran. CONCLUSIONS: Despite using only rank-based preference data, we were able to demonstrate dabigatran to be the most and warfarin the least preferred treatment with an MCDA incorporating all factors relevant for distinguishing OACs.