A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) compares two or more health interventions, focusing exclusively on costs. This type of study is only applicable when the health interventions of interest have equal effectiveness. However, this is rare in human and veterinary medicine. Treatments proven equally effective in randomized controlled trials conducted for licensing may differ in effectiveness, when used in broader animal populations. Even generic drugs can differ in their pharmacokinetics in specific situations. When using human generic drugs in pets, pharmacokinetics can differ, because bioequivalence in humans does not always equate to bioequivalence in animals due to differences in gastrointestinal tract anatomy and physiology. In countries with less stringent quality control for approval of veterinary pharmaceuticals, generic drugs can broadly differ in pharmacokinetics from the original patented drug. Nonetheless, we present an example, comparing the costs of different treatments for African animal trypanosomiasis in Uganda. In most African countries, veterinary services have been decentralized and privatized and livestock keepers bear the costs of most services. In such settings, where interventions must fit limited budgets, CMA might be a pragmatic approach.