Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) could become valuable contributors to a circular economy by implementing the 3R principles (reduce, reuse, and recycle). While reducing the pollution load of sewage is the primary objective of a WWTP, this process generates several potentially valuable byproducts including treated effluent, biogas, and sludge. The effluent can be reused in various end use applications and biogas can be reused as a fuel (for electricity generation, transportation, and cooking) or a chemical feedstock. The sludge can either be directly recycled as soil conditioner or via thermochemical/biochemical processing routes to recover material (e.g., hydrochar), energy (e.g., heat, and syngas), and resource value (phosphorus). This work presents a five-layered assessment framework for quantitatively evaluating the sustainable value of municipal WWTPs by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing assessment (LCCA) tools. In addition, indicators reflecting potential benefits to stakeholders and society arising from investments into municipal WWTPs such as the private return on investment (PROI) and the environmental externality costs to investment ratio (EECIR). The framework is validated in a hypothetical case study where the sustainable value of a circularly managed municipal WWTP is evaluated in situations involving multiple byproduct utilization pathways. Four future circular options (FCOs) are examined for a 50,000 m3/d capacity WWTP treating sewage up to tertiary standards. The FCOs mainly differ in terms of how biogas is reused (to meet the WWTP's internal energy demands, as cooking fuel, or as fuel for city buses after upgrading) and how sludge is recycled (as soil conditioner or by producing hydrochar pellets for electricity generation). The FCO in which treated effluent is reused in industry, biogas is used as cooking fuel, and sludge is used as a soil conditioner provides the greatest sustainable value (i.e., the lowest private costs and environmental externality costs (EEC) together with high revenues), the highest PROI, and the lowest EECIR. The strengths and limitations of the proposed assessment framework are also discussed.