Objective To assess the cost-utility study of renal transplantation compared with nemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods A prospective study of end-stage renal disease patients was followed up for 3 months after renal replacement therapy. The study population included 196 patients (renal transplant [RT] n=63, hemodialysis [HD] n=82 and continious ambulatory peritoneal dialysis [CAPD] n=51) from 6 hospitals of Sichuan province. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the WHOQOL-BRIEF questionnaire. Utility scores were obtained so as to conduct CUA (cost-utility analysis). Costs were collected from financial department and by patient interview. Results The utility values were 0.539 9± 0.013 for RT, 0.450 8± 0.014 for HD, 0.512 2±0.099 for CAPD, respectively. The mean direct cost of the first three months of renal transplant was significantly higher than dialysis (RT and CAPD). Over 3 months, the average cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for patients after CAPD was lower than HD and RT. Compared to HD, incremental cost analysis showed that CAPD was more ecnomical than RT. Sensitive analysis showed that CAPD was more effective than RT when ΔQALY varied in the limit of 95% confidence interval. However, the cost-utility of RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD was varied with ΔQALY level. Conclusions Cost-utility analysis showed that CAPD was a more favorable cost-utility ratio when compared to RT at early stage RT vs HD and CAPD vs HD, but which cost-utility ratio is better, we can not draw a certain conclusion.