Background Global elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV) requires expanded uptake of antiviral therapy, potentially by simplifying testing algorithms, especially in resource-limited countries. We evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of three strategies that determine eligibility for anti-HBV treatment, as compared with the WHO 2015 treatment eligibility criteria, in The Gambia. Methods We developed a microsimulation model of natural history using data from the Prevention of Liver Fibrosis and Cancer in Africa programme (known as PROLIFICA) in The Gambia, for an HBV-infected cohort of individuals aged 20 years. The algorithms included in the model were a conventional strategy using the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2017 criteria, a simplified algorithm using hepatitis B e antigen and alanine aminotransferase (the Treatment Eligibility in Africa for the Hepatitis B Virus [TREAT-B] score), a Treat All approach for all HBV-infected individuals, and the WHO 2015 criteria. Outcomes to measure effectiveness were disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years of life saved (YLS), which were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with the WHO 2015 criteria as the base-case scenario. Costs were assessed from a modified social perspective. A budget impact analysis was also done. We tested the robustness of results with a range of sensitiviy analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Findings Compared with the WHO criteria, TREAT-B resulted in 4877 DALYs averted and Treat All resulted in 9352 DALYs averted, whereas the EASL criteria led to an excess of 795 DALYs. TREAT-B was cost-saving, whereas the ICER for Treat All (US$2149 per DALY averted) was higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold for The Gambia (0·5 times the country's gross domestic product per capita: $352). These patterns did not change when YLS was the outcome. In a modelled cohort of 5000 adults (aged 20 years) with chronic HBV infection from The Gambia, the 5-year budget impact was $1·14 million for Treat All, $0·66 million for TREAT-B, $1·03 million for the WHO criteria, and $1·16 million for the EASL criteria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that among the Treat All, EASL, and TREAT-B algorithms, Treat All would become the most preferred strategy only with a willingness-to-pay threshold exceeding approximately $72 000 per DALY averted or $110 000 per YLS. Interpretation Although the Treat All strategy might be the most effective, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in The Gambia. A simplified strategy such as TREAT-B might be a cost-saving alternative.