To compare the costs and number of undetected cases of four cervical cancer screening strategies (CCSS) in Mexico.We estimated the costs and outcomes of the following CCSS: a) conventional Papanicolaou smear (Pap) alone; b) high-risk human papilloma virus testing (HR-HPV) as primary screening with Pap as reflex triage; c) HR-HPV as primary screening with HPV-16/18 typing, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and immunostaining for p16/Ki67 testing as reflex triage, and d) co-testing with HR-HPV and LBC with HPV-16/18 typing and immunostaining for p16/Ki67 as reflex triage. The outcome of interest was high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer.HR-HPV testing, HPV typing, LBC testing and immunostaining is the best alternative because it is the least expensive option with an acceptable number of missed cases.The opportunity costs of a poor quality CCSS is many false negatives. Combining multiple tests may be a more cost-effective way to screen for cervical cancer in Mexico.