In recent decades, a variety of self‐centering braces (SCBs) have been developed to address the limitations of conventional frames by decreasing residual drift due to earthquakes. However, the initial construction cost of self‐centering (SC) structures is expected to be higher and the study about its cost‐effectiveness over the life‐cycle span is limited. This paper presents a seismic life‐cycle cost evaluation of emerging friction spring‐based self‐centering braced frames (SCB‐Fs) compared with traditional buckling restrained braced frames (BRB‐Fs) when an existing structure is upgraded. Particular focus is on the effect of residual deformation, initial construction cost, and high fatigue performance of the SCB. Following the performance‐based design of the SCB‐F and BRB‐F, system‐level analyses are conducted. Numerical results of case‐study buildings indicate that the total expected annual loss (EAL) of the BRB‐F increases by approximately three times when the effect of residual deformation is considered, while its effect on the total EAL of the SCB‐F is negligible. Besides, the superior performance of the SCB‐F compared to BRB‐F is highlighted by a substantial reduction in EAL induced by earthquakes. In addition, the acceleration‐related seismic losses of SCB‐F constitute approximately 44% of the total EAL. Its contribution is significantly larger in the case of the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F. From the perspective of economic benefit, increasing the structural life‐cycle span is beneficial to the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F. The high fatigue performance of the SCB is favorable to increase the economic benefit of the SCB‐F, especially when the reduction of repair time is considered. The economic benefit of the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F is highly related to the initial construction cost. Taking the 100 years as an expected life‐cycle span, the high initial construction cost of the SCB‐F would not be paid off when the unit cost of the SCB is about 2.1 times that of the BRB.