<p>The accessibility of conventional fire suppression equipment is limited in specialized environments such as high-rise buildings and underground facilities. Although gas-hydrate-based suppressants offer potential advantages through their compact design and effective dispersion, systematic techno-economic and environmental evaluations remain limited. In this study, the techno-economic performances of CO₂, HFC-125, and HFC-23 hydrate-based fire suppression systems were analyzed using an Aspen Plus V14 process simulation. An integrated assessment combining production and environmental costs, as well as specific energy consumption (SEC), was conducted to evaluate their practical viability against conventional suppressants. In particular, CO₂ hydrate-based fire suppression demonstrated the most favorable economics, with production and suppression costs of $0.52/kg and $0.6/m³, respectively, rendering it competitive among conventional suppressants. The HFC-125 hydrate achieved the highest energy efficiency (SEC = 0.008 kWh/kg) and superior fire suppression performance; however, its production cost ($1.36/kg) limits current competitiveness. Moreover, the HFC-23 hydrate showed limited economic viability. This study provides a systematic techno-economic assessment framework that integrates economic viability, energy efficiency, and environmental impact. Consequently, the developed framework establishes comprehensive evaluation criteria for hydrate-based fire suppressants related to conventional suppression systems.</p>