This paper presents the results of various benefit−cost ratio (BCR) analyses of back-end nuclear fuel cycle alternatives. Korea is currently considering two alternatives for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel: direct disposal and pyroprocessing. Each of these two alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. To select one alternative, various evaluation criteria must be considered, since the superior alternative cannot be intuitively selected. A multi-criteria decision-making model can be a good methodology in this case. The analyses of benefit−cost ratios showed that the pyroprocessing alternative was more advantageous than direct disposal when using the results of the AHP and TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. However, when using the results of the PROMETHEE method, the rank was reversed, and direct disposal was more advantageous than the Pyro-SFR fuel cycle. The results of BCR and MCDM can greatly contribute to establishing a nuclear policy for the back-end nuclear fuel cycle.