Allergic rhinitis is a real problem for public health insofar as it generally affects young and economically active subjects, whose quality of life is altered. The WHO has ranked it sixth in its concerns. The cost of chronic allergic rhinitis are largely underestimated, as its symptoms are obviously less spectacular than those of asthma. Mostly, rhinitis precedes asthma. The latter is at least four times more common in people who suffer from rhinitis than the general population. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare the average cost of treatment of rhinitis in adults depending on whether the patient is treated homoeopathically or allopathically. METHOD: Prospective and longitudinal observational programme carried out among general practitioners in the context of their everyday work. RESULTS: The costs were added together over the three months and expressed in Euros. They are the result of the value of the resources used, and itemized by the doctor researching. The perspective adopted was the same as that of society in general, which is global and the largest as it does not refer to any system of reimbursement. Within this perspective, valorisation of costs is calculated according to an evaluation of opportunity costs. In practice, one should know that opportunity cost is complex and a great number of authors use approximations based on market values (e.g. salary). The cost of treatment for 3 months (society's perspective) for the group treated allopathically (€ 45) is 40% more expensive than the homeopathic treatment (€ 27), CONCLUSION: The preliminary results of this study (after 3 months), reveal the pertinence of the homeopathic treatment was made clear by a cost 40% cheaper than the group treated allopathically.