Purpose: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis in which we compared a preoperative [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT-based one-stop-shop imaging strategy with current best practice in which [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT is only recommended after negative or inconclusive [^99mTc]Tc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT for patients suffering from primary hyperparathyroidism. We investigated whether the one-stop-shop strategy performs as well as current best practice but at lower costs. Methods: We developed a cohort-level state transition model to evaluate both imaging strategies respecting an intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitored treatment setting as well as a traditional treatment setting. The model reflects patients’ hospital journeys after biochemically diagnosed primary hyperparathyroidism. A cycle length of twelve months and a lifetime horizon were used. We conducted probabilistic analyses simulating 50,000 cohorts to assess joint parameter uncertainty. The incremental net monetary benefit and cost for each quality-adjusted life year were estimated. Furthermore, threshold analyses regarding the tariff of [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT and the sensitivity of [^99mTc]Tc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT were performed. Results: The simulated long-term health effects and costs were similar for both imaging strategies. Accordingly, there was no incremental net monetary benefit and the one-stop-shop strategy did not result in lower costs. These results applied to both treatment settings. The threshold analysis indicated that a tariff of €885 for [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT was required to be cost-effective compared to current best practice. Conclusion: Both preoperative imaging strategies can be used interchangeably. Daily clinical practice grounds such as available local resources and patient preferences should inform policy-making on whether a hospital should implement the one-stop-shop imaging strategy.