OBJECTIVES: Dengue fever is a vector-borne disease prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions. It is an important public health problem with a considerable and often under-valued disease burden in terms of frequency, cost and quality-of-life. Previous analyses have documented the cost-effectiveness of vaccination as well as a range of vector-control interventions. However, such analyses do not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combined vaccination and vector control interventions. We seek to demonstrate the public health and economic value of interventions compared with the next best alternative embracing both vaccination as well as vector-control interventions. METHODS: Using a previously published dynamic compartmental model (Knerer 2013) able to consider dengue fever transmission, we assessed the impact of different vector-control, vaccination and mixed strategies. We then combined the results with economic data to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of dengue vector-control and vaccination strategies in different age-groups in Thailand. We estimated the expected costs and outcomes of individuals with dengue fever (vaccinated or not). Costs included direct medical costs such as the costs of vaccination, costs of hospitalisation, as well as the indirect costs of lost productivity. The health burden of dengue fever was assessed in relation to disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost. RESULTS: We found vaccination to be a cost-effective single intervention, both with imperfect efficacy (30.2%) as well as under more optimistic scenarios (70%). Cost-effectiveness ratios for vector-control strategies ranged from being cost-effective and even cost saving to cost ineffective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of WHO guidelines. In combination, control interventions and vaccination exhibited a marked impact on dengue fever transmission and proved to be a cost-effective strategy as well as delivering the potential for cost-savings. CONCLUSIONS: By providing a high level of disease control, the implementation of a vaccination program in combination with vector-control strategies appears to be cost-effective and often cost-saving.