In addition to environmental and social factors, financial comparisons can be made between Trenchless Technologies and traditional open cut methods. However, these comparisons are often difficult because there are no universal cost comparison methods. While technically the best solution depends upon the ground conditions and the location of the water table, in practice the financial boundaries of a project and the degree of acceptable financial risk generally play a more significant role in the decision-making process.

The question also arises, 'cost to whom?' The client is responsible for the direct costs of the contract and possibly for any compensation for the loss of amenity or trade by local residents and businesses . This often means that the costs are borne by local citizens and future generations. Furthermore, certain government financial policies can distort the real costs of installing, maintaining and repairing utility services. This can lead to the misconception that open cut is cheaper, when in fact a full accounting of the environmental and social costs may indicate otherwise.

The direct costs of both the trenchless and open cut methods in the terms of materials, time and equipment can be established relatively easily. Indirect costs such as reinstatement of the surface, long-term repairs to roads and buildings due to delayed settlement, useful life of the service after work and a degree of risk for unplanned or additional emergency work that may arise during the project can often exceed direct costs. An advantage of trenchless methods is that there are generally less indirect costs because surface access is less disruptive, projects are shorter and hence the social and environmental costs are considerably reduced.