OBJECTIVES:  To develop an economic evaluation of cost minimization of using pazopanib in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, compared with Sunitinib in the Colombian context. Since according to the literature it showed no difference in effectiveness of these two treatment alternatives. METHODS:  A Markov model was designed in quarterly cycles, with a time horizon of three years for a hypothetical cohort of 1 patient diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib as an alternative treatment. The analysis included the likelihood of progression to second line and progression-free survival. A sensitivity analysis was made, using different discount rates (0%, 3.5% and 10%). The outcomes were evaluated in terms of incurred costs with the use of the two treatments and cost of the adverse events. These costs were taken from Colombian health system information databases. The costs are showed in United States dollars, using current exchange rate to Colombian pesos. RESULTS:  According to the base case analyzed in terms of costs, the use of Pazopanib has a three years cost of US $ 16,966 and Sunitinib has a cost of US $18,796 in the same time horizon, showing that Pazopanib is a thrifty technology, since it has a lower cost than Sunitinib with a difference of US $1,803 per patient. According to the sensitivity analysis it showed savings in all the scenarios. Concluding that there are more savings in total treatment costs with smaller discount rates. CONCLUSIONS:  Pazopanib is a cheaper option, which means, lower costs for the treatment and management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma versus sunitinib, assuming no difference in effectiveness according to the studies reviewed.