OBJECTIVES: To estimate and compare the costs associated with post androgen deprivation (post-ADT) therapy abiraterone acetate plus prednisone followed by post-chemotherapy enzalutamide (‘AA+P→ENZ sequence’) versus the opposite treatment sequence (‘ENZ→AA+P sequence’) in patients with non-visceral metastases. METHODS:  A health-state transition cost consequence model was developed to assess patients with castration resistant prostate cancer who had non-visceral metastases. The model compares two treatment sequences: AA+P→ENZ versus ENZ→AA+P. Patients enter the model to receive AA+P or ENZ as post-ADT treatment. Those who discontinue treatment enter the active monitoring phase until they initiate docetaxel chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemotherapy are allowed to discontinue treatment and progress through active monitoring, post-chemotherapy ENZ or AA+P treatment, and palliative care states. Patients are subject to death at all times. The proportion of patients occupying a particular health state is assessed every month. Twenty years of time horizon was used to capture the whole life expectancy of patients. Costs and life-years were discounted at 3.5%. The payer’s perspective was used. Drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, drug administration costs, monitoring costs, and terminal care costs were taken into account. RESULTS: The total life time costs of the sequence AA+P→ENZ was less costly than sequence ENZ→AA+P; total savings per patient treated were USD$15,339.90 (Exchange rate USD$1 = COP$3,000). Most costs were generated during the post-ADT state (AA+P: USD$34,112.99 representing 69% of total life time costs; and ENZ: USD$52,368.60, representing 80%). Costs during doxetacel chemotherapy were USD$5,452.40 (11%) for AA+P and USD$5,791.40 (9%) for ENZ. Post-chemotherapy costs were USD$10,196.73 (20%) for AA+P→ENZ and USD$6,942.02 (11%) for ENZ→AA+P. CONCLUSIONS: Using currently available data and the presented modelling approach, the cost comparison treatment sequences suggests that starting treatment with AA+P may result in lower total life time costs than starting treatment with ENZ, and may yield to substantial savings per patient treated.