OBJECTIVES: Adult soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a cancer that starts in soft tissues of the body, including muscle, tendons, fat, lymph vessels, blood vessels, nerves, and tissue around joints. The treatment depends on the different histological types that make up the STS. Both pazopanib as trabectedina are indicated for the treatment of adult patients with advanced STS previously treated. Both drugs are considered as similar in efficacy. However, there exist substantial differences that make pazopanib the treatment more effective in comparison to trabectedina. The objective of this analysis is to compare both treatments in terms of cost and efficiency in the management of (STS) in Spain. METHODS: Efficacy and Safety data used were obtained from a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of both drugs in terms of Progressive Free Survival and Overall Survival and their safety profile in terms of type of drug administration. To evaluate the cost per treatment, it has taken into account the cost of drug treatments (€, 2016) and has been calculated based on initial dose recommended to estimate the cost/month for each drug. RESULTS: Both drugs have showed a similar efficacy; however, pazopanib is administrated via oral, while trabectedina is administrated through vials via central line, being able to generate clinical complications. With respect to the costs difference, pazopanib, in comparison to trabectedina, is around 44% more efficient, being able to represent a potential saving of 24.366,72 € per patient/year. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib and trabectedina are drugs with similar efficacy for the management of adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma previously treated. However, the difference in their administration and in costs associated make pazopanib a drug alternative more efficient in comparison to trabectedina and, besides, it has type of drug administration favorable to the patient quality of life.