The aim of this study is to identify the most feasible pressure management (PM) method financially among four available PM methods [i.e., Fixed Outlet (FO), Time Modulated (TM), Flow Modulated (FM), and Remote Node Modulated (RNM) PM] recently introduced to EPANET source code by our previous study. For that, the four PM methods are tested in 18 different water distribution systems (WDSs), which differ in size, demand pattern, and amount of leakage. PM is inevitable for WDSs; if not applied, leakage flow rate, pipe bursts, active leakage control (ALC) efforts, and indirect water and energy losses increase abundantly. This circumstance increases expenditures due to augmentations in the amount of water entering the network and allocations from the municipal budget for pipe bursts, ALC activities, and energy consumption. Equipment and construction costs must be considered when PM is planned. However, leakage flows, pipe bursts, ALC activity efforts, and indirect water and energy losses are reduced with PM application, generating economic benefits. Four PM methods bring different levels of economic benefits. The cost-benefit analysis of each method has been performed, and the method that brings the maximum benefit (maximum cost reduction) has been determined. It has been revealed that the most applicable PM method, according to the cost-benefit analysis, varies according to the unit water cost. The RNM PM method is found to be the most appropriate when the unit water cost is high. As the unit water cost decreases, FO PM or TM PM becomes the most appropriate PM method instead of RNM PM. However, when the demand pattern of the network is smooth, the most feasible method becomes FO PM, and when the demand pattern is peaked while the unit water cost is relatively low, TM PM becomes the most applicable method.