OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in Dutch primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months. POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on Incontinence Impact Adjusted Life Years (IIALYs), Quality Adjusted Life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires). RESULTS: 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with €-161 (95%CI: -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger ICER (-€3,696) and ICUR (€6,379) (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-utility Ratios). CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care.