Biological invasions have significant negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and services, resulting in substantial economic and health costs, estimated in the trillions of dollars. Preventing and managing invasions are essential for sustainable development, as emphasized in the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework. However, some invasive species may occasionally provide benefits, leading to conflicting perceptions among stakeholders. Claims that invasion science overlooks positive contributions can hinder proper impact assessment and management. Quantitatively balancing benefits and costs is misleading because they coexist without offsetting each other. Benefits often come at a price, affecting different communities and regions over time. An integrated approach considering both costs and benefits is necessary for effective management. Invasive species are plants, animals, pathogens, and other organisms that have evolved outside their recipient ecosystems and can cause economic or environmental harm. While some invasive species may provide economic benefits, such as in aquaculture or tourism, the documented benefits are typically by-products of their negative impacts. Systematic reviews confirm that the costs of biological invasions are more frequent and affect more sectors than benefits. The IPBES assessment highlights that 92% of impacts from invasive alien species are negative, with only 8% being positive. The economic costs of invasions are estimated at over $2 trillion, with potential higher true costs. Benefits related to financial gains are often quantifiable for some stakeholders, but costs are typically harder to assess. The temporal scale of benefits and costs is also important for comparison, as ecological impacts often manifest over longer durations. Benefits to some can be costly to others, as seen in cases where invasive species are used for economic gain but cause long-term ecological and socioeconomic damage. Ethical management must integrate all positive and negative effects, using nonmonetary evaluation methods and existing frameworks to assess impacts. Decision-makers should involve affected communities in management processes and raise awareness of alternative native resources. The evidence and arguments presented demonstrate that it is ethically and scientifically dubious to prioritize the limited economic benefits of biological invasions in the face of their overwhelming negative impacts. Calls for focusing on monetary benefits risk undermining the need for mitigation efforts.Biological invasions have significant negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and services, resulting in substantial economic and health costs, estimated in the trillions of dollars. Preventing and managing invasions are essential for sustainable development, as emphasized in the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework. However, some invasive species may occasionally provide benefits, leading to conflicting perceptions among stakeholders. Claims that invasion science overlooks positive contributions can hinder proper impact assessment and management. Quantitatively balancing benefits and costs is misleading because they coexist without offsetting each other. Benefits often come at a price, affecting different communities and regions over time. An integrated approach considering both costs and benefits is necessary for effective management. Invasive species are plants, animals, pathogens, and other organisms that have evolved outside their recipient ecosystems and can cause economic or environmental harm. While some invasive species may provide economic benefits, such as in aquaculture or tourism, the documented benefits are typically by-products of their negative impacts. Systematic reviews confirm that the costs of biological invasions are more frequent and affect more sectors than benefits. The IPBES assessment highlights that 92% of impacts from invasive alien species are negative, with only 8% being positive. The economic costs of invasions are estimated at over $2 trillion, with potential higher true costs. Benefits related to financial gains are often quantifiable for some stakeholders, but costs are typically harder to assess. The temporal scale of benefits and costs is also important for comparison, as ecological impacts often manifest over longer durations. Benefits to some can be costly to others, as seen in cases where invasive species are used for economic gain but cause long-term ecological and socioeconomic damage. Ethical management must integrate all positive and negative effects, using nonmonetary evaluation methods and existing frameworks to assess impacts. Decision-makers should involve affected communities in management processes and raise awareness of alternative native resources. The evidence and arguments presented demonstrate that it is ethically and scientifically dubious to prioritize the limited economic benefits of biological invasions in the face of their overwhelming negative impacts. Calls for focusing on monetary benefits risk undermining the need for mitigation efforts.