Haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains the cornerstone of management of patients with renal failure in developing countries as renal transplantation is just developing in most. Although both HD and PD are cost intensive, specific advantages and disadvantages have been identified with either of them. Comparative assessment of their effectiveness, benefits and cost will assist in providing a rational basis for preference of one or the other especially in third world countries where renal replacement therapy remains unaffordable and therefore relatively inaccessible to majority of patients. We therefore conducted this prospective randomised study to compare the effectiveness, benefits, cost and complications of acute or intermittent PD (IPD) and HD using locally manufactured PD fluids. Two groups of twenty patients with renal failure matched for age and clinical diagnosis were managed with IPD and HD and the effectiveness, costs and complications of both modalities compared. We found that both were comparably effective in the control of uraemia with significant reductions in the serum urea, creatinine and potassium from 29.2 +/- 7.2 mmol/L, 1693.7 +/- 580.5micromol/L and 4.8 +/- 1.2 mmol/L to 13.2 +/- 4.6 mmol/L, 796.0 +/- 458.0micromol/ L and 3.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/L respectively for IPD (P<0.05) and 34.4 +/- 9.0mmol/L, 1536.0 +/- 832.5 micromol/L and4.8 +/- 1.3 mmoV L to 14.6 +/- 7.5 mmol/L, 830.0 +/- 570.7 micromol/L and 3.9 +/- 0.8 mmol/L respectively for HD (P<0.05). In addition, there were significant improvements in serum bicarbonate in both groups. There was no significant difference in percentage reduction in serum urea, creatinine and serum potassium in both groups (P>0.05). However, HD managed patients required more blood transfusion (P<0.05). There were also comparably significant reductiohs in systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressures in both groups (P<0.05). The costs of dialysis as well as the total cost of hospitalization were found to be significantly lower in patients managed with IPD (P<0.05). The commonest complication observed in patients managed with IPD was peritonitis while in patients managed with HD it was dialysis-induced hypotension. The clinical outcome was equally good in all the ARF patients as all of them recovered irrespective of the treatment modality; CRF patients did not fare as well with 37.5% mortality observed. We conclude that IPD and HD are effective renal replacement therapies with the former being significantly cheaper. IPD should be encouraged in our patients with ARF or acute exacerbation of chronic renal failure.