The goal of the study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of both a brief intervention and cognitive behavior therapy for the treatment of alcohol abuse and to identify the variables associated with treatment outcome. The study took place at a community-based drug and alcohol treatment center in Australia. Two hundred and ninety-five clients were randomly assigned to receive either brief intervention or cognitive behavior therapy. Post-test data were collected on 133 of these clients 6 months after treatment. The brief intervention consisted of feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, and self-efficacy. The cognitive behavior therapy entailed six weekly sessions focusing on cravings and urges, managing crisis, saying no and solving problems, emergencies and lapses, and maintenance. Findings revealed that there was not a statistically significant difference in treatment outcome for brief intervention versus cognitive behavior therapy. This remained true at the 6 month follow-up. However, brief intervention proved to be much more cost effective than cognitive behavior therapy. As such, the authors conclude that for low-dependence alcohol abuse, brief intervention should be the treatment of choice. Tables, figures, references