While the ultimate goal of simulation training is to enhance learning, cost-effectiveness is a critical factor. Research that compares simulation training in terms of educational- and cost-effectiveness will lead to better-informed curricular decisions. Using previously published data we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of three simulation-based programs. Medical students (n = 15 per group) practiced in one of three 2-h intravenous catheterization skills training programs: low-fidelity (virtual reality), high-fidelity (mannequin), or progressive (consisting of virtual reality, task trainer, and mannequin simulator). One week later, all performed a transfer test on a hybrid simulation (standardized patient with a task trainer). We used a net benefit regression model to identify the most cost-effective training program via paired comparisons. We also created a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve to visually represent the probability that one program is more cost-effective when compared to its comparator at various "willingness-to-pay" values. We conducted separate analyses for implementation and total costs. The results showed that the progressive program had the highest total cost (p < 0.001) whereas the high-fidelity program had the highest implementation cost (p < 0.001). While the most cost-effective program depended on the decision makers' willingness-to-pay value, the progressive training program was generally most educationally- and cost-effective. Our analyses suggest that a progressive program that strategically combines simulation modalities provides a cost-effective solution. More generally, we have introduced how a cost-effectiveness analysis may be applied to simulation training; a method that medical educators may use to investment decisions (e.g., purchasing cost-effective and educationally sound simulators).