Comparisons

Material and process comparisons built from real quoting experience, with a recommendation rather than a list of features.

How to use these comparisons

Each comparison ends with a recommendation, not a feature matrix. Where one option wins on cost, strength, corrosion or lead time, we say which one and why. Where the answer genuinely depends on volume, tolerance or service conditions, we give the point at which the decision flips instead of declaring a winner.

These are written from quoting data — real quantities, real material prices, real cycle times — rather than from datasheets. That is why some recommendations look counter-intuitive at first, such as 3-axis beating 5-axis on cost for parts that already fit in three setups.

Material comparisons: find the binding constraint first

Almost every material question reduces to one question: which property is the binding constraint? Identify that one and the rest follows, because the second-best property is nearly always good enough.

Binding constraint	Ask this first	Usually lands on
Corrosion	What is the service environment?	316L or duplex for chloride, Monel for seawater, 304 for mild indoor service
Strength to weight	Is the mass being carried or moved?	7075 or 7050 aluminium; Ti-6Al-4V once temperature or corrosion joins in
Wear	Is there sliding contact or an edge that must stay sharp?	440C, D2, hardened 4140; bronze for bearing surfaces that must sacrifice themselves
Cost at volume	What is the annual quantity?	6061, 1045, 303 or POM below the tooling breakeven
Temperature	Continuous or peak, and for how long?	PEEK, PPS or ULTEM for plastics; Inconel where steel would creep
Electrical or thermal	Is the part conducting or insulating?	C110 copper or beryllium copper for conduction, a defined-dielectric plastic for insulation

If two constraints bind at once — a marine part that also has to be light, say — that is exactly the case worth a conversation before the material is fixed on the drawing. Choosing the obvious answer to the first constraint can make the second one unaffordable.

Process comparisons: the breakeven is the whole answer

Process debates are almost always volume debates. Below a few hundred parts, machining wins on total cost because there is no tooling to amortise. Above a few thousand, casting, forging or moulding usually wins on piece price. Each comparison below gives the crossover for that specific pair.

Pair	Typical crossover	What moves it earlier
CNC vs injection moulding	500–2,000 parts	Simple geometry, loose tolerance, single material
CNC vs die casting	2,000–5,000 parts	Low wall thickness, high feature count, thin ribs
CNC vs 3D printing	10–50 parts	Functional testing, tight tolerance, metal rather than resin
CNC vs sheet metal	Geometry dependent	Enclosed volumes, thick sections, machined bores and threads
5-axis vs 3-axis	Two setups saved	Undercuts, angled faces, tight position between faces
CNC vs EDM	Reach limited	Sharp internal corners, hardened material, deep ribs

Lead time is the second half of the breakeven and the half most often forgotten. Tooling adds four to eight weeks before the first good part, so a volume decision made on piece price alone can still cost you a launch date.

The three numbers that decide most comparisons

Quantity sets the process. The tightest tolerance on the drawing sets the machine and the number of setups — a single 0.005 mm callout can move a part from a 3-axis to a 5-axis machine and add 40 per cent to the price. Landed cost is what you actually pay, and it is where finishing, documentation and shipping terms quietly decide the winner between two options that looked equal on paper.

Bring all three to the comparison and most decisions make themselves. Bring only one and the answer will change as soon as the other two are known.

Frequently asked questions

Are these comparisons based on your own pricing?

They are based on how we quote, which reflects real material and cycle costs. Another supplier with different equipment may land on a different answer for the same pair, particularly close to a breakeven point.

Can you quote both options so I can compare directly?

Yes, and it is the fastest way to settle a comparison. Send one drawing with both material or process options marked, and we will return both prices with the trade-off stated in a line each.

What if my comparison is not listed?

Ask. The pairs here are the ones buyers raise most often; the underlying logic — binding constraint, breakeven, landed cost — applies to any pair you can name.

Do the recommendations change with quantity?

Often. A material that is the right call at 50 parts can be the wrong call at 5,000 once tooling, scrap rate and lead time are counted. Tell us the annual volume and we will answer for that volume rather than in general.

How accurate are the breakeven figures?

Treat them as ranges rather than thresholds. Geometry, wall thickness and feature count move them by a factor of two in either direction, which is why the table lists what moves the decision earlier instead of a single number.

Not seeing your pair?

Describe the two options and the constraint you actually care about — weight, cost, corrosion or lead time — and we will give you a straight answer with the reasoning attached, so you can check it against your own priorities.