Many hypertension management guidelines are available from different organizations, with no consensus on whether an intensive or moderate systolic blood pressure (SBP) management for high-risk adults aged ≥65 is better. This study aimed to assess the long-term economic value of intensive hypertension control compared with moderate control in the US elderly to guide the decision-making of hypertension treatment strategies. We developed a Markov model with a one-year time cycle to simulate the progression of stroke, coronary heart disease, and mortality over a lifetime window. We used the 2017 National Center for Health Statistics data to generate a national representative simulation sample of older adults aged ≥65. We extracted costs from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Statistical Briefs and recent publications. We defined having SBP <130 mmHg as SBP control, and SBP <140 mmHg as moderate SBP control. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how uncertainties of key model parameters influenced the simulation results. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of ≤$50,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained was considered as cost-effective. The mean survival time of moderate and intensive SBP control were 7.80 (95% CI 7.71-7.89) and 9.63 (95% CI 9.52-9.74) years, respectively. The incremental costs, QALYs, and life years of intensive control compared with moderate SBP control were $7,399 (95% CI $7,076- $7,722), 0.88 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), and 1.83 (95% CI 1.58-2.08) years. Comparing with moderate SBP control, intensive SBP control was cost-effective, with an ICER of $8,405/QALY (95% CI $7,960-$8,924/QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that low medication adherence and high medication cost had moderate and high negative impacts on the cost-effectiveness of intensive SBP control, respectively. Among adults aged ≥65, aiming for an intensive SBP goal of <130 mmHg is a cost-effective strategy.