Introduction This observational study compared historical costs for provision of socket prostheses with simulated costs for bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs). Materials and Methods The costs of transfemoral socket prostheses and BAP were extracted from the Queensland Artificial Limb Service's regulatory documentation according to K-levels and estimated for low-cost, budget, and high-cost limb options. Total costs including labor and parts after 6-year funding cycles were cross-compared for each socket and BAP fitting option. Results Labor and attachment costs were reduced by 18% and 79%, respectively, for all BAP options compared with any socket fitting. BAP was more economical by $18,200, $7,000, and $1,600 when fitted with low-cost, budget, and high-cost options, respectively, compared with sockets for K4. The low-cost limb was the only economical option compared with all sockets above K2. Other BAP options were uneconomical compared with socket fitting below K4. Discussion Suppliers of conventional prosthetic components can strongly impact the overall costs. Interestingly, manufacturers of BAP could play a decisive role given the cost of specific parts (e.g., connectors, protective devices). Conclusions The proposed approach for cost assessments could assist funding organizations worldwide working toward the development of fair and equitable financial assistance programs for individuals choosing BAP.