Objective To compare the durability and cost-effectiveness of slightly acidic electrolyzed oxidizing water(SAEOW),ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) and glutaraldehyde (GA) in two conditions,i.e.,continuous machine cleaning and continuous manual cleaning.Methods The maximal numbers of endoscopes which were disinfected by the three disinfectants at its minimal effective concentration,as well as the corresponding costs were compared.The cost-effectiveness of three disinfectants were evaluated with revenue-incremental cost analysis.Results The number of endoscopes disinfected by ortho-phthalaldehyde was larger than that by two other disinfectants,140 ± 2 by machine wash and 226 ± 1 by hand washing;followed by glutaral disinfectant,88 ± 2 and 108 ± 2 by machine wash and hand wash,respectively;slightly acidic electrolyzed oxidizing water disinfected the least endoscopes,34 ± 2 and 39 ± 1 by machine wash and hand wash.There were significant differences among these three disinfectants (all P ＜ 0.05).Compared with GA,one more Yuan invested to OPA yielded 2.24 yuan more under the condition of machine wash and 3.14 yuan more under the condition of hand wash.Compared with GA,one Yuan invested in SAEOW produced 47.14 yuan by machine wash and 45.6 Yuan by hand wash.Conclusion Under full workload,orthophthalaldehyde shows the best durability among the three disinfectants,while slightly acidic electrolyzed oxidizing water shows the highest economic benefit.