All

The short answer The SOMI Partner Network is a vetted group of specialised manufacturing factories in China, coordinated through one point of contact. Buyers get CNC machining, sheet metal fabrication, metal stamping, die casting, injection molding and 3D printing from one programme, with one engineering review, one quality route and one quotation, instead of managing a separate supplier for every process. What the network actually is It is not a single factory and it is not a marketplace. It is a managed supplier group: a set of factories that each specialise in one or two processes, sitting behind a single commercial and engineering interface. SOMI states that it has built this group over more than ten years of manufacturing and service work and has supplied precision parts to more than 1,200 customers. The point of the structure is that the factory doing the work is chosen for the job rather than for convenience. A thin-wall injection moulding part and a five-axis machined bracket are genuinely different businesses, and a buyer who wants both is usually better served by one programme that can route each part to a capable plant than by one plant that claims to be excellent at everything. The six processes and six industries it covers The network is organised around six production capabilities and six end markets, which is what makes it possible to keep a multi-part programme in one place. CapabilityWhat it coversTypical output CNC machiningTurning and 3, 4 and 5 axis millingPrecision metal and plastic parts, prototypes to production Sheet metal fabricationLaser cutting, bending, welding, finishingEnclosures, brackets, panels and frames Metal stampingProgressive and single-die stampingHigh-volume formed parts and contacts Die castingAluminium and zinc alloysHousings, covers and structural castings Injection moldingPlastic, two-shot and insert moldingHousings, enclosures and consumer parts 3D printingFDM, SLA, SLS and MJFPrototypes, jigs and low-volume functional parts The industries served are consumer electronics, automotive, medical, aerospace and aviation, robotics and automation, and industrial machinery. Those are demanding sectors on tolerance, traceability and documentation, and they are the reason the network puts engineering review in front of the quotation rather than behind it. Four production families, one programme. The part goes to the process it needs. How a factory gets onto the network The value of a supplier group is entirely determined by what it refuses to accept. SOMI publishes a six-stage selection and onboarding process, and the stages are worth reading as a buyer because they tell you what has already been checked before your drawing arrives. Preliminary assessment. The factory environment, production equipment, capacity and quality standards are established on site. In-depth evaluation. The quality management system and environmental and social compliance are reviewed in detail against the network's eligibility criteria. Legal due diligence. The supplier has to hold the correct registrations and licences, and the company behind it is background-checked. Technical requirement. Process capability and engineering depth are assessed, including whether the factory can optimise a design and produce CAD or 3D drawings rather than only cut to a drawing. Trial order. A sample order and then a small batch confirm that the factory can hold the quality standard in production, not just on the first part. Ongoing assurance. Partners are audited periodically and reviewed on delivery, quality and communication, with continuous improvement expected. Alongside those stages, partners have to meet standing requirements: at least one production capability, at least five years of production experience, after-sales technical support, documented quality-management evidence and the registrations that apply to their process, in-house design capability, contract compliance and adherence to the network's intellectual property policy. Where a customer programme requires a specific quality-system certification, that requirement is verified against the actual factory doing the work before the order is released rather than assumed from a network-level statement. Selection, then a trial order, then continued auditing. The trial order is the stage that matters most. How a project runs once it is on the network The buyer-side flow is deliberately short. You upload the CAD and 3D files, and they are treated as confidential. Engineering checks and confirms the sample specification, dimensions and surface treatment. If you have no drawings, the technical team produces them; if you have them, they are reviewed for manufacturability before quoting. A quotation follows, then a sample order so you can approve the physical part, then mass production, then quality control against the agreed specification, then delivery with tracking through the logistics partner. The single most important step in that sequence is the design review before the quotation, because most of the cost of a part is fixed by the wall thickness, material and tolerance decisions that are already on the drawing when it arrives. Catching a moulded rib that will sink, or a machined internal corner that cannot be reached, before the tool is cut is worth more than any discount negotiated afterwards. Why one coordinated network beats five direct suppliers Buying each process from the cheapest specialist looks like the low-cost route and usually is not. The quoted price is only part of the cost: every additional supplier adds purchase orders and invoices, a separate quality visit, inbound inspection, rework when two vendors interpret a tolerance differently, and freight between vendors. Manufacturer case data published by integrated suppliers puts the hidden cost of a fragmented supplier base at roughly 20 percent or more above the quoted price, and reports total landed cost premiums of around 18 to 28 percent on a three-supplier arrangement against 0 to 7 percent when the work is consolidated, annual defect rates of 3.2 to 6.8 percent across separate vendors against under 0.4 percent consolidated, and lead times of 45 to 62 days against 21 to 35 days. The lead time effect is largely queue time: five vendors can add three to four weeks of pure waiting, with parts sitting between the cutter, the welder and the coater rather than being worked on. Treat those figures as planning ranges from supplier case studies rather than universal constants, but the direction is consistent and it is the reason consolidated sourcing keeps growing. The savings come from removing touchpoints, not from a bigger discount. What the network does not do It is not a single factory. Coordination has to be paid for. If a program is one process, one material and very high volume, a dedicated plant that owns the whole line can still be the better answer, and we will say so. It does not transfer design responsibility. Engineering review reduces risk; it does not make the buyer's functional requirements our problem. The specification, the load case and the acceptance criteria stay with you, and the first article approval is yours. Certification is program-specific, not network-wide. Regulated markets ask for particular quality systems and particular records. Those have to be confirmed for the factory and the program in question before production, not inferred from a website. Tooling and intellectual property need written terms. Who owns the mould, where it is stored, what happens if the program ends and how a design change is priced all belong in the agreement. The network's intellectual property policy is a starting point, not a contract. Capacity priority is commercial. A network can route work to whichever partner has the right capability and the free capacity, but a rush job competes with other customers' work and should be planned rather than assumed. Logistics and terms are still your project. Incoterms, shipping method, customs documentation and lead time across the destination border sit outside the manufacturing steps, and they have to be agreed up front. How to start Send the CAD or 3D files with the drawing, or the physical sample if no drawing exists, together with the annual volume, the target lead time, the critical tolerances and the surfaces you care about. If the program spans several processes, say so at the start: that is exactly the case the network is built for, and routing the parts to the right factories before quoting is what keeps the total cost visible. See plastic injection molding for the moulded side of the network, metal stamping for high-volume formed parts and sheet metal fabrication for enclosures and frames. Send your drawings for one coordinated quotation Scope and sources. Network structure, capability list, partner requirements and the six onboarding stages were taken in 2026 from the SOMI Custom Parts partner programme page and from the company service and industry overview, which states six production capabilities, six served industries, more than ten years of manufacturing and service experience and more than 1,200 customers. Consolidated-sourcing effects are drawn from supplier case data published by a full-service sheet metal fabricator, a review of vendor-consolidation economics citing procurement studies and consolidation case data for injection molding orders. Those consolidation percentages and lead times are commercial case results, not audited benchmarks, and should be treated as planning ranges rather than promises. Quality-system, certification, tooling-ownership and intellectual property terms are agreed per program and per factory; confirm them in writing before releasing production.

The short answer Nothing, in either direction. A manufacturing partner pays no joining fee, no listing fee and no annual subscription, and a buyer pays nothing to use the network - only for the parts actually ordered. What does cost money is the work: samples, tooling, third-party testing, freight, and any audit you ask us to run. What free to join covers, and what it does not Free means access, not manufacturing. There is no membership tier to buy, no paid placement inside the network and no charge for the first engineering pass on a drawing. Every item that costs real money is either a physical thing, such as a die or a first-off sample, or an outside service, such as a laboratory test or a freight booking. Each of those appears on the quotation as its own line, which is the point: a cost you can see can be challenged, and a cost buried in a membership cannot. Access is free. Material, machine time and outside services are not. ItemWho bears the costTypical range Membership, listing and subscriptionNobodyZero, no annual fee DFM review and quotationSOMIIncluded at the enquiry stage Samples and first article inspectionBuyerCharged at the quoted sample price Tooling, dies and mouldsBuyerUSD 400 to 20,000 and up, by complexity Third-party testingBuyerAt the laboratory or agency rate Freight, duty and customs clearanceBuyerAt the carrier rate On-site factory audit you requestBuyerOne day on site plus travel What a factory actually pays to be in the network The entry price for a manufacturing partner is time and paperwork rather than money, and the size of that bill depends on how ready the factory's records already are. Qualification covers the legal entity and its scope, the equipment list and capacity, gauge calibration, material traceability and the quality system that is actually in use rather than the one on the wall. Published onboarding timelines for custom parts put supplier qualification and quality-system review at about two to four weeks, with the first-article and production-part approval stage adding another two to six weeks after tooling is ready. For a new factory building a new die or mould, that is eight to fourteen weeks between first contact and an approved production part. The mix of that work changes with complexity. Straightforward stamped or moulded parts can be documented in three to four weeks once the tooling exists. Medium-complexity housings and assemblies that need multi-stage processing, third-party performance testing and measurement-system analysis run six to eight weeks. Safety-critical parts with full dimensional reports, capability studies and a capacity verification run ten to sixteen weeks, and the wait is usually for evidence rather than for metal. The expensive outcome is not a fee, it is a repeat audit. Reports from automotive supplier onboarding put the share of Chinese factories that fail their first on-site process audit at around 40 percent, and the findings repeat because they are administrative rather than technical: gauges without current calibration certificates, a quarantine or material review area that is not controlled, incomplete training records for key operators, and sub-tier suppliers such as plating or heat treatment sitting outside the factory's own quality system. Fixing those costs weeks. Not having them costs nothing. What a buyer pays, and what sits outside the part price A quoted unit price for a machined, stamped, moulded or cast part normally carries material, machine time, the standard surface finish and the standard inspection. It does not carry tooling, which is a one-off charge, and it does not carry anything the part has to be told to do later. The lines that sit outside it are predictable: samples and first-article inspection, the die or mould itself, any third-party test that a regulator or your own customer requires, freight, duty and customs clearance, and expedite premiums when a date moves. A buyer who compares two quotations without checking which of those lines are included is comparing two different scopes, not two prices. Where a free route can cost more than a fee Most sourcing routes in this market are not free and the fee models are published, so they can be compared line by line. A commission agent takes a percentage of order value, a flat-fee agent takes a fixed amount per order, a retainer buys monthly availability, and a full-service provider charges a higher percentage for handling compliance and logistics as well. A route that advertises itself as free is normally earning somewhere else in the transaction. Published market fee models. With no separate fee line, the comparison becomes part price against part price. ModelHow it is chargedTypical market range Commission agentPercent of order value3 to 10 percent of FOB value Flat fee per orderFixed amount each orderUSD 200 to 1,500 per order Monthly retainerFixed monthly paymentUSD 500 to 3,000 per month Hourly consultingPer hour workedUSD 30 to 80 per hour Full-service providerPercent plus project work8 to 12 percent of order value SOMI Partner NetworkInside the quoted part priceNo separate fee line The fee that looks cheapest is the one to examine first. A commission below three percent is usually recovered somewhere else, most often in freight or inspection margin, and the example that circulates in this market is an agent quoting four percent while quoting USD 1,180 for freight that the carrier priced at USD 760 - the six-point discount on commission erased several times over. The discipline is simple: ask for the carrier invoice, ask in writing whether the agent receives any rebate from the factory, and normalise every offer to a landed cost per part before comparing it. Where the money goes on a fifty thousand dollar order Arithmetic on the published ranges makes the difference concrete. An order of USD 50,000 carried by a five percent commission agent adds about USD 2,500 in fees before freight is counted, and the fee scales with the order rather than with the work done. A flat fee of USD 200 to 1,500 is cheap on that order and expensive on a repeat order of USD 5,000. A retainer of USD 500 to 3,000 per month only amortises if you place enough work through it. And a free listing that earns its money in freight margin is not free at all, it is a different invoice. Two of the four stages carry a charge, and both are itemised rather than packaged as a fee. Where the service cost sits inside the quoted part price, the comparison becomes part price against part price, which is the only comparison a buyer can actually act on. Ask for the quotation broken into material, machine time, finishing and inspection, and the same arithmetic can be run on real numbers instead of on a market range. Limits: what no fee does not mean It is not a price guarantee. Free to join says nothing about the price of a part. A free network with a slow quotation process can cost more in engineering time than a paid one with a fast one. It does not include tooling. Dies, moulds and fixtures are paid for by the buyer, from roughly USD 400 to 1,000 for a simple solid extrusion or stamping die up to USD 2,000 to 20,000 and beyond for complex hollow profiles and multi-station progressive dies. It does not include regulation. Flame, food-contact, medical and automotive approvals are grade-level and record-level work. Sampling, documentation and third-party testing are charged and they are not optional. It does not buy priority. Rush work competes with other customers' schedules. Expedition is a commercial decision with a price attached, not a membership benefit. It does not remove the commercial terms. Minimum order quantity, payment terms, tooling ownership and storage, and the exit arrangements when a programme ends all still have to be agreed in writing before production. It does not make our margin invisible. Our cost sits inside the part price. If you want to see it, ask, and the material, machine time, finishing and inspection lines can be separated on the quotation. It says nothing about certification. Whether a particular factory holds a particular quality system certificate is confirmed per programme and per factory, in writing, before an order is released. How to get a costed answer instead of a range Send the 3D model, the 2D drawing with tolerances, the annual volume and the delivery destination, and the first pass - geometry review, process route and quotation - is at no charge and no commitment. If the programme spans more than one process, say so at the start, because routing the parts before quoting them is what keeps the total cost visible. See how the partner network works, plastic injection molding for moulded parts and metal stamping for high-volume formed parts. Send a drawing for a no-fee quotation Scope and sources. Fee models, commission bands, flat fees, retainers and the freight-margin example were compiled in 2026 from published sourcing-fee guides by HiSourcing, Statrys, WooSourcing and Feisourcing, which report commission at 3 to 10 percent of FOB value, flat fees of USD 200 to 1,500 per order and retainers of USD 500 to 3,000 per month. Qualification and approval durations come from a published stamping supplier onboarding timeline (qualification two to four weeks, production-part approval two to six weeks after tooling, eight to fourteen weeks end to end) and from a PPAP cycle-time breakdown giving three to four weeks of preparation for simple stamped or moulded parts, six to eight weeks for medium complexity and ten to sixteen weeks for safety-critical parts. The first-audit failure rate and the recurring findings come from an automotive supply chain certification guide. These are market ranges and planning figures, not quotations for any specific part. Nothing on this page states or implies a certification held by any factory; quality systems are confirmed per programme and per factory in writing before production.

The short answer Two tracks. A buyer joins in one step: send a drawing and the quotation workflow starts, within 24 to 48 hours. A factory joins through qualification - document review, an audit, then sample validation - which takes about two to four weeks for the review and audit and six to fourteen weeks end to end when custom tooling is involved. Two tracks, two timelines One question decides which process applies: are you buying parts, or making them? A buyer's entry step is a file transfer. A factory's entry step is evidence. Neither costs money, and neither is a formality, but the two timelines differ by an order of magnitude, so it is worth knowing which one you are on before a launch date is fixed. If you are buying, joining means you are inside the quotation workflow, and nothing else changes: one project manager and one point of contact from the first enquiry through to the shipment. If you are making, joining means your records, your equipment and your output have been checked against a specification that a third party can audit, and the first order is deliberately small for exactly that reason. What we do not do is charge for the door. There is no application fee, no listing fee and no subscription on either side, which is why the honest answer to how long it takes is about paperwork and sample parts rather than about money. The buyer track: four steps from enquiry to released order The buyer path is short because the checks happen on the part rather than on you. Share the files. A STEP or IGES model plus a 2D PDF drawing with tolerances is enough to quote. A physical sample can stand in for a model where no CAD exists, but a drawing with tolerances is what makes two quotations comparable. DFM review. Geometry, tolerances, wall thickness, bend radius, draft and material are reviewed against the process route before price is discussed. This is where cost is usually found: a wall that is too thick for the cycle time, a tolerance no process holds at that size, or a bend that needs a relief cut. Quotation. Unit price, tooling, inspection, lead time and the assumptions behind each of them, in writing. Anything the price depends on that has not been stated is a change order waiting to happen. Release. Sample or first article, approval against the drawing, then production. Repeat orders skip the first two steps. Four steps, one of which needs something from you. What to send with the first message Most of the delay in a first quotation is a missing file rather than a slow engineer. This is the short list, and each item changes a number that appears on the quote. Send thisWhy it moves the price or the date 3D model: STEP, IGES, X_T or STLCycle time, tooling route and DFM comments 2D drawing with tolerances and finish calloutsInspection plan, gauge choice and whether a process can hold it Material and surface finishCost, lead time and whether a secondary supplier is needed Annual volume and first-order quantityProcess choice: tooling-free work and tooled work cross over at different points Target date and delivery destinationProduction slot and freight mode Compliance requirement, if anyWhether a specific grade, record set or third-party test applies NDA or quality agreement, if you need oneSign it before drawings are shared, not after The same list, seen from the factory side of an application. The factory track: what has to exist at each gate For a factory, joining is a sequence of six gates, and each one asks for evidence rather than a promise. Application. What the factory makes, in which processes, on which equipment, and at what tonnage or envelope limits. Entity and scope check. Legal entity, registered scope, facility location and ownership of the machines, so that capacity claimed is capacity controlled. Document review. Quality manual and records, gauge calibration status, material certificates, inspection capability and the list of sub-tier suppliers. Audit. One day on site against a checklist shared in advance, or a remote process review with live video where travel is not practical. For orders above roughly USD 50,000, published guidance treats the on-site audit as mandatory rather than optional. Sample and first article. Trial parts produced against a frozen drawing and reported dimensionally, which is the only step that tests the claims made in the first four. Approved status. Entry on the routing list, an agreed escalation path for quality issues and the first production order. How long it takes, and what makes it slip The published numbers for custom parts are consistent. Qualification and quality-system review take about two to four weeks. The first-article and production-part approval stage adds two to six weeks after tooling is ready, which puts eight to fourteen weeks between first contact and an approved production part when a new die or mould has to be built. Measured on its own, an approval package takes three to four weeks to assemble for simple stamped or moulded parts, six to eight weeks for medium-complexity parts that need multi-stage processing and third-party testing, and ten to sixteen weeks for safety-critical parts. Stages overlap; the total is set by the slowest evidence, not by the sum of the rows. StageTypical durationWhat makes it slip Document review1 to 3 weeksGauge calibration or material certificates missing On-site or remote audit1 day, plus schedulingChecklist and scope not shared in advance Corrective actions2 to 6 weeksFindings in quarantine control or traceability Sample and first article1 to 4 weeksDrawing not frozen, or a change made mid-sample Production release1 to 2 weeksApproval level not agreed before samples ship Why applications stall, and what stops the clock The findings that delay a first approval are almost never about machining capability. They repeat, and they are administrative: Gauges without current calibration. A measurement without a calibration certificate is an opinion, and an inspector will treat it as one. An uncontrolled quarantine or material review area. If non-conforming parts are not physically separated, nothing downstream can be trusted. Incomplete training records. Key operators and inspectors need traceable qualification, not verbal seniority. Sub-tier suppliers outside the system. Plating, heat treatment and coating are where most stamping and machining defects are actually created, and they are often not in the factory's own quality system on paper. Broken material traceability. A mill certificate that takes three weeks to appear is a warning sign rather than a formality. Two practical habits cut most of the delay. Send the checklist two weeks before the visit so the factory prepares the right evidence instead of guessing, and agree the approval submission level before tooling is released rather than after samples ship. Neither is expensive, and both remove the most common cause of a slipped date, which is surprise. Limits, and how to start Not every applicant is accepted. A network is only as good as its worst member, so capability, capacity and record discipline are all part of the decision. Joining does not guarantee volume. Work is routed on capability, capacity, price and past performance, in that order. The audit does not replace your customer's audit. If your own customer requires their own visit, their own checklist or their own approved vendor list, that runs on top of this one. Regulated and export-controlled work needs more. Medical, aerospace and defence programmes carry documentation and control requirements that are assessed case by case before anything is quoted. No certification claims are made here. Which quality system a factory holds, and to what scope, is confirmed per programme and per factory in writing rather than assumed from a website. To start on either track, send what you already have. A buyer needs a model and a drawing. A factory needs a capability list, a licence and the process it wants to be considered for. From there the next step is a free design review on a live part or a scheduled audit, and both are quoted in weeks rather than in fees. See the partner programme for the factory side, CNC machining for the most commonly routed process and sheet metal fabrication for formed and welded work. Start an application or send a drawing Scope and sources. Onboarding durations and the sequence of gates were compiled in 2026 from a published supplier onboarding timeline for stamping parts (qualification two to four weeks, approval two to six weeks after tooling, eight to fourteen weeks end to end, on-site audit mandatory above roughly USD 50,000) and from a PPAP cycle-time breakdown giving three to four weeks for simple stamped or moulded parts, six to eight weeks for medium complexity and ten to sixteen weeks for safety-critical parts. The recurring audit findings, the corrective-action window and the reported first-audit failure rate come from an automotive supply chain certification guide and from an overview of the six-stage automotive supplier admission process. These are planning ranges drawn from published experience, not commitments, and they move with the completeness of the documentation submitted. Nothing here states or implies that any factory holds a particular certificate; quality systems are confirmed per programme, per factory and in writing before production.

The short answer For a buyer the benefit is subtraction: one engineering review, one quotation, one inspection standard, one invoice and one point of accountability across six processes, instead of five separate vendor relationships. For a factory the benefit is inbound work with no listing fee. The hidden surcharge of fragmented sourcing is around 20 percent of the quoted base price. The same network, two different sets of benefits It helps to separate the two sides, because the words benefit means different things depending on which end of the order you sit. A buyer is buying removed work: fewer interfaces, fewer invoices, fewer places for a defect to hide. A factory is buying demand: a route to programmes it could not quote alone, without paying for a listing or a subscription. Same network, two different ledgers. The rest of this answer deals with the buyer side, because that is where the numbers are measurable, and then returns to what a factory actually receives. Fewer interfaces, and the cost they carry A multi-vendor chain does not fail loudly. It leaks. Each vendor adds a purchase order, an inbound inspection, an invoice, a transit leg and a chance for a coating to be chipped or a bracket to arrive bored to the wrong datum. Published breakdowns of the surcharge put inter-vendor logistics at around 6 percent of base cost, rework and transit damage at around 5 percent, per-vendor quality audits at around 4 percent, purchase order and administration overhead at around 3 percent, and expedited freight at around 2 percent, for a total hidden layer of about 20 percent on top of the lowest quoted price. None of these lines appear on a vendor quotation. All of them appear on the total cost of acquisition. Consolidation cases point the same way. Documented fabrication-and-finishing consolidation results report a cost per part around 32 percent lower after the process chain was brought under one supplier, with the saving coming from removed logistics, unified inspection and eliminated rework rather than from a larger markup. That is a commercial case result rather than an audited benchmark, and it should be treated as a direction of travel rather than a promise. It is worth setting against the alternative: keeping two or three qualified suppliers is not free either, and the multi-source premium - the extra management cost of running them - is typically reported at 3 to 5 percent of procurement spend, with a practical threshold of roughly USD 200,000 to 500,000 of annual volume per category before a split pays for itself. Lead time is lost in queues, not in machines Machining a bracket takes minutes. Waiting for a bracket takes weeks. In a five-vendor chain, parts finish cutting on Monday, ship on Tuesday, and then wait for the welder's queue to open on Thursday. Welding finishes, parts ship again, and the coater's queue starts the following week. Five vendors can easily add three to four weeks of pure queuing in which no value is added and no machine is running. Where the steps sit under one roof, the same hand-offs happen the same day, with no transit and no queue reset. This is the mechanism behind the second published case: a fabricator delivering 35 complex information kiosks from design to finished assembly in six weeks, where the timeline held because every step happened in-house with no external hand-off. It is also visible in the multi-source data, which cuts the other way: moving from a single supplier to two or three qualified ones raised reported on-time delivery from 83 to 94 percent and cut disruptions from 2.7 to 1.1 a year, at the price of added coordination. A coordinated network is an attempt to keep the second number without paying the whole first number. Quality you can attribute The practical problem with fragmented sourcing is not that any one shop is bad. It is that when a welded assembly fails, no single vendor owns it. The bracket was in tolerance, the weld was in tolerance, and the powder coat hid the problem until the customer found it. Defect rates across different factories building to identical specifications are reported to vary by 5 to 15 percent, driven by operator training and internal quality culture rather than by the specification. With one route, one drawing set and one inspection standard, a non-conformance has a location and a cause instead of a debate. What that means in day-to-day terms: one drawing revision status across all processes, so the machinist and the welder are not working to different issues of the same print. One first article that covers the finished assembly rather than four first articles that each pass and do not fit together. One report with the shipment. And one place to send a corrective-action request that has to come back with an answer. Engineering that happens before tooling The largest savings in these programmes are usually designed in rather than negotiated later. When bending, welding and finishing sit in the same review, the tolerance stack across the three operations is calculated once, at the quotation stage, instead of being discovered at the trial assembly. A bend relief that a welder needs, a hole that a coater will fill with powder, a datum that a machinist needs to hold flatness: each of these is a small design change before a die is cut and an expensive rework after. The other engineering benefit is a fair comparison. When the same team quotes a stamped bracket and a moulded one, the metal-versus-plastic decision is made on real unit prices at real volumes, including tooling amortisation, rather than on a rule of thumb. What the network does not do It is not a marketplace with instant pricing. Routing a multi-process programme takes engineering judgement, which is why the first step is a design review rather than a checkout page. It is not always the lowest unit price. For one simple part in one process, a specialist shop bidding on its own may quote lower than a coordinated programme. Consolidation pays through the total cost of acquisition, not through the unit price line. It does not remove your due diligence. If you are regulated, you still need your own approved supplier list, your own audit rights and your own records. It does not make capacity infinite. Capacity is process-specific and finite, and peak seasons and the Lunar New Year shutdown are real constraints that have to be planned around rather than argued with. It does not decide your commercial terms for you. Tooling ownership, storage, IP, payment terms and the exit arrangements when a programme ends belong in writing. It does not suit every programme. Below a few thousand parts a year in a single process, tooling and setup dominate and there is little coordination cost to remove in the first place. It makes no certification claims. Quality systems are confirmed per programme and per factory in writing before production rather than asserted on a web page. How to test it with one project The sensible way to evaluate any consolidation is to run one programme through it and compare the two totals, not two quotations. Pick a job that spans at least two processes - a stamped bracket that needs finishing, a machined housing that needs a moulded insert, a sheet metal enclosure with a welded frame and a coated panel. Send the whole drawing set at once rather than one part at a time, and ask for the quotation with the process route shown against each operation. Then count what you did not have to do: the purchase orders you did not raise, the inbound inspections you did not run, the transit legs you did not pay for and the emails you did not send. Four hand-offs replaced by one route. See metal stamping and plastic injection molding for the two highest-volume processes in the network, and surface finishing for the step that most often creates the hidden hand-off. Send a multi-process drawing set for one quotation Scope and sources. The hidden-cost breakdown (inter-vendor logistics 6 percent, rework and transit damage 5 percent, per-vendor audits 4 percent, administration 3 percent, expedited freight 2 percent, about 20 percent in total), the 32 percent per-part consolidation result, the 35-kiosk lead-time case and the queue-time mechanism were compiled in 2026 from a published comparison of fragmented and consolidated sheet metal sourcing. The multi-source premium of 3 to 5 percent of procurement spend, the volume threshold of about USD 200,000 to 500,000 per category, the on-time delivery movement from 83 to 94 percent, the disruption frequency change and the 5 to 15 percent inter-factory defect variation come from a review of multi-source strategy data that cites a 2025 American Chamber of Commerce in South China survey, and from a sourcing comparison of single and multiple supplier models. These are commercial case results and planning ranges published by other parties, not audited benchmarks or guaranteed outcomes. Nothing here states or implies a certification held by any factory; quality systems are confirmed per programme and per factory in writing before production.

Quick AnswerFive key rules for extrusion design: (1) uniform wall thickness throughout the profile (0.8-6mm, vary no more than 50% between sections), (2) inside corner radii of 0.5mm minimum, (3) avoid deep narrow channels (depth-to-width ratio under 3:1), (4) symmetrical profiles extrude faster and more consistently, and (5) balance solid and hollow sections. Following these guidelines reduces die cost by 20-40% and improves extrusion speed by 30%.Wall Thickness GuidelinesUniform wall thickness is the most important design rule. The molten aluminum flows through the die at the same rate in all sections only if wall thickness is consistent. Recommended minimum wall: 0.8mm for aluminum 6063, 1.2mm for 6061. Maximum wall: 6mm for most applications. If your design has different wall sections, transition gradually over at least 3x the thickness difference. Variations exceeding 50% should be avoided.Corner Radii and FilletSharp corners concentrate stress and make aluminum flow unevenly through the die. Minimum inside radius: 0.5mm (0.020"). Minimum outside radius: 0.8mm (0.030"). Generous radii (1-2mm) extend die life and improve material flow. For decorative profiles, larger radii produce a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. All internal corners should have radii -- sharp V-shaped grooves are difficult to extrude.Profile Symmetry and BalanceSymmetrical profiles extrude faster and more consistently. The die opening should be balanced around the center axis. Unbalanced profiles tend to bend or twist as they exit the die. If asymmetry is unavoidable, design the die with balancing features or specify additional straightening operations. Solid sections should be distributed evenly around the center -- avoid concentrating all mass on one side.Hollow Sections and Screw BossesHollow sections require more complex dies with mandrels and are more expensive than open profiles. Design hollow sections only when necessary (e.g., enclosed wireways, sealed chambers). Screw bosses and attachment features should be placed on the outer surface where possible. Internal threaded features are difficult to extrude -- use drop-in T-nuts or drill and tap after extrusion.Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, our engineering team provides free DFM analysis on every extrusion profile design. We review your cross-section against extrusion design rules and suggest modifications to improve manufacturability, reduce die cost, and speed up production. We also provide design support for secondary operations including CNC machining of end details, drilling and tapping, anodizing, and assembly.Case StudyA customer submitted an asymmetric extrusion profile with wall thicknesses ranging from 1mm to 4mm, a sharp internal corner, and a deep narrow channel. SOMI's DFM review recommended: smoothing the wall transitions (1.5-2.5mm max variation), adding a 0.8mm radius at the sharp corner, and widening the narrow channel slightly. Die cost decreased from $2,800 to $1,600, extrusion speed improved by 35%, and the profile had minimal distortion.Industry DataProper DFM in extrusion reduces die cost by 25-40% and increases extrusion speed by 20-40% on average (Aluminum Extruders Council Design Guide, 2025). The most common extrusion design mistake is non-uniform wall thickness, accounting for 60% of first-pass die rejections. Profiles designed with DFM principles have 85% first-pass success rate versus 45% for designs without DFM review.Related QuestionsWhat are the advantages of aluminum extrusion?What materials are used in extrusion?What surface finishing is available for extrusions?How does extrusion compare to other manufacturing processes?

Quick AnswerAluminum extrusion provides five key advantages: (1) custom cross-sections designed for your specific application, (2) excellent strength-to-weight ratio (comparable to steel at 1/3 the weight), (3) natural corrosion resistance, (4) low tooling cost ($500-$3,000 for extrusion dies), and (5) infinite length capability. Combined with good thermal conductivity and full recyclability, extrusion is the most cost-effective process for linear structural profiles.Design FlexibilityExtrusion can produce virtually any cross-sectional profile: T-slots for modular framing, hollow sections for lightweight structures, heat sink fins for thermal management, tongue-and-groove for panel mounting, wire management channels, and decorative architectural profiles. The die is simply a shaped opening in a steel block, so complex profiles cost the same as simple ones. Design freedom is limited only by the rules of uniform wall thickness (0.8-6mm recommended) and balanced profile geometry.Strength and WeightAluminum 6063-T5, the most common extrusion alloy, has tensile strength of 185 MPa and yield strength of 145 MPa. Aluminum 6061-T6 achieves 310 MPa and 275 MPa respectively. Both are approximately 1/3 the weight of steel (2.7 vs 7.8 g/cm3). Extruded profiles can match the strength of steel structures through optimized cross-sectional design, using material only where it is needed structurally.Cost EffectivenessExtrusion die cost: $500-$3,000 depending on complexity. This is dramatically lower than casting molds ($10,000-$100,000) or forging dies ($20,000-$100,000). Prototype profiles can be produced in 2-3 weeks. Production extrusion speed: 10-50 meters per minute. Material cost: $4-6/kg for standard alloys. For linear profiles in lengths from 0.5m to 12m, extrusion is the most economical metal forming process.Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, we offer complete aluminum extrusion services from profile design to finished, machined, and assembled components. Our engineers design the extrusion profile optimized for your application and provide DFM feedback before the die is cut. We also offer secondary operations: precision cutting to length, CNC machining of end features, drilling and tapping, anodizing and powder coating, and assembly of extruded frames.Case StudyA solar panel mounting system manufacturer needed a custom aluminum profile for their new ground-mount racking system. The profile required internal channels for bolt slides, a flat top surface for panel mounting, and lightweight design for reduced shipping costs. SOMI designed a custom 6063-T6 extrusion profile ($1,800 die cost), extruded and anodized the profiles, and CNC-machined the end connections. The client saved 40% compared to their previous steel fabrication approach.Industry DataThe global aluminum extrusion market was valued at $87 billion in 2025, with building and construction (35%), transportation (25%), electrical/electronics (12%), and machinery (10%) as the largest segments. The extrusion process achieves material utilization of 95%+ (versus 20-50% for CNC machining), making it one of the most sustainable metal forming processes (Aluminum Extruders Council, 2025).Related QuestionsHow to design parts for aluminum extrusion?What is the difference between extrusion and other processes?What materials are used in extrusion?What surface finishing is available for extrusions?

Quick AnswerMetal stamping produces thousands of different parts across virtually every industry. Common examples: automotive body panels, brackets, and chassis components; electrical connectors, terminals, and contacts; appliance panels and brackets; industrial washers, shims, and gaskets; electronic EMI/RFI shielding cans; spring clips and retaining rings; heat sink fins for electronics cooling; nameplates and data tags; fasteners and hardware; and food container lids and closures.Automotive Stamped PartsThe automotive industry is the largest consumer of metal stampings. Common parts: body panels (doors, hoods, fenders), structural brackets (engine mounts, suspension brackets), chassis components (crossmembers, reinforcement plates), heat shields, brake backing plates, seat tracks and brackets, fuel tank straps, and exhaust hangers. Automotive stampings range from thin (0.5mm) decorative trim to thick (6mm) structural brackets.Electrical and Electronic Stamped PartsPrecision stamping produces critical electrical components: connector pins and sockets (brass, phosphor bronze), electrical terminals (tin-plated copper), relay and switch components, EMI/RFI shielding cans (steel, tin-plated steel), heat sink fins (aluminum), battery contacts (stainless steel), and lead frames for semiconductor packaging. These parts require precision tolerances of ±0.001" or better.Consumer and Industrial ProductsAppliance components: washing machine panels, dryer drums, refrigerator shelves, oven brackets. Hardware: washers (flat, lock, spring), retaining rings, shims, gaskets, nameplates, and serial number tags. Food packaging: can lids, bottle caps, pull tabs, and foil seals. Construction: metal ties, brackets, joist hangers, and flashing. Agricultural: equipment guards, panels, and brackets.Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, our metal stamping services cover parts from simple washers to complex progressive die components with 15+ stations. We work with all standard stamping materials: cold rolled steel, galvanized steel, stainless steel, aluminum, brass, copper, and spring steel. Our engineers design the progressive die layout to maximize material utilization and minimize waste. We also offer secondary operations: tapping, welding, and surface finishing.Case StudyA manufacturer of electrical enclosures needed 100,000 stainless steel EMI shielding cans per year. The design required precise .050" x .200" vents in a grid pattern, 90-degree flanges, and two M3 tapped holes. SOMI designed an 11-station progressive die that pierced the vent pattern, formed the flanges, and cut the blank to final shape. Each press stroke produced a complete part at 80 pieces per minute. Tapping was done in a secondary automated operation.Industry DataThe precision metal stamping industry produces over 500 billion parts annually worldwide (Precision Metalforming Association, 2025). Automotive accounts for 60% of stamping output by value, electronics 15%, appliances 10%, and industrial 10%. The average progressive stamping die produces 3-5 million parts over its lifetime before requiring replacement.Related QuestionsWhat is the difference between stamping and CNC machining?What surface finishing options are available?What materials are used in sheet metal fabrication?What is the difference between stamping and sheet metal fabrication?

Quick AnswerMetal stamping punches and forms parts from sheet metal coils using progressive dies at 200-1,000+ parts per minute. Per-unit cost at 100,000+ units: $0.01-0.50. Tooling cost: $5,000-$100,000. CNC machining cuts parts from solid blocks at 1-10 parts per hour. Per-unit cost: $5-100+. Zero tooling cost. Choose stamping for very high volumes of thin, flat, or formed parts. Choose CNC for precision, complex 3D geometries, and low-to-medium volumes.Process ComparisonMetal Stamping: A coil of sheet metal feeds through a progressive die in a stamping press. Each station performs an operation (pierce, blank, form, draw, trim). Parts are produced with each press stroke. Press speed: 50-1,500 strokes per minute depending on press type and part size. Material utilization: 60-85%. CNC Machining: Solid block of material is clamped in a machine and cut by rotating tools. Each part is individually programmed and machined. Material utilization: 20-50%.Cost AnalysisFor a simple bracket: stamping tooling $15,000, per-part cost $0.08 at 100,000 units. CNC machining: no tooling, per-part cost $3.50 at 100 units, $2.00 at 1,000 units, $1.50 at 10,000 units. The breakeven point where stamping becomes cheaper is typically 20,000-50,000 units depending on part complexity and tooling cost.Application GuidanceChoose stamping for: simple shapes (washers, brackets, clips), very high volumes (100,000+ per year), thin materials (0.2-6mm), and parts that are primarily 2D with bends. Choose CNC for: complex 3D geometries, tight tolerances (±0.001" vs ±0.005"), small-to-medium volumes (1-50,000 units), and thick materials (over 6mm).Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, we offer metal stamping services for high-volume projects and CNC machining for precision and low-volume work. Our engineers help you determine which process -- or combination of processes -- delivers the best balance of cost and quality for your specific part. We also offer hybrid solutions: stamp blanks with CNC-machined features.Case StudyAn automotive supplier needed 500,000 steel mounting brackets per year. CNC machining would cost $1.20 each ($600,000/year). SOMI designed a 7-station progressive stamping die ($38,000 investment) that produced brackets at $0.15 each ($75,000/year). The tooling cost was recovered in 3 months. The stamped brackets met all dimensional and strength requirements.Industry DataMetal stamping is the most efficient metal forming process for high-volume production, achieving per-part costs as low as $0.001 for simple parts. The global stamping market is valued at $240 billion, with automotive accounting for 60% of stamping production (PMA, 2025). Progressive die stamping can reduce part cost by 80-95% compared to CNC machining at volumes above 100,000 units.Related QuestionsWhat types of parts are made with metal stamping?What surface finishing options are available?When should I choose sheet metal over CNC?What is the difference between stamping and sheet metal fabrication?

Quick AnswerSurface finishing adds 5-50% to the base CNC machining cost. As-machined: 0% added cost. Bead blasting: 2-5%. Anodizing Type II: 5-10%. Powder coating: 8-15%. Zinc/nickel plating: 10-20%. Electropolishing: 15-30%. Hand polishing/buffing: 20-40%. Hard coat anodizing (Type III): 15-25%. Chrome plating: 25-50%. Higher quantities reduce per-unit finishing cost significantly. SOMI provides transparent cost breakdowns showing finishing costs separately.Cost by Finishing TypeBead blasting: $2-15 per part. Setup cost: minimal. Suitable for all quantities. Anodizing Type II: $5-30 per part, $50-200 minimum batch charge. Color adds $2-10. Quantity discount: 30-50% at 1,000+ parts. Powder coating: $8-40 per part, $100-300 minimum. Color changes add setup. Best for 100+ parts. Electropolishing: $5-50 per part. Minimum $100-200. Batch process, so cost per part decreases significantly at higher quantities.Hidden Cost FactorsPart size: Larger parts cost more to finish due to more material, longer processing time, and larger tanks/fixtures needed. Geometry complexity: Parts with deep internal cavities, blind holes, and complex internal features may require specialized fixturing or manual touch-up. Tape/plugging: Areas that must remain uncoated (conductive surfaces, sealing surfaces) require masking -- adding $2-20 per part. Quality level: Cosmetic vs functional specifications affect cost. A Class A automotive finish costs 50-100% more than a standard industrial finish.Cost Savings StrategiesDesign parts with the finish in mind: avoid sharp corners that cause coating buildup, specify minimum shelf life if appearance is critical, and combine parts of the same finish in a single batch. Using the same supplier for both machining and finishing eliminates packaging, shipping, and handling costs between processes, typically saving 10-20% of total finishing cost.Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, we manage finishing in-house or through closely integrated partner facilities, eliminating the cost and risk of shipping parts between separate suppliers. Our quoting system provides detailed finishing cost breakdowns and recommends cost-saving alternatives. For example, if your design specifies electropolishing, our engineers may suggest whether bead blasting would achieve the required appearance at 50% lower cost.Case StudyA client specified electropolishing for 500 CNC-machined 316L stainless steel parts at a quoted finishing cost of $12 each. SOMI's engineers reviewed the application and determined that passivation + bead blasting would achieve the same corrosion resistance and appearance at $4 each -- saving $4,000 on the order. The client approved the alternative, and the parts passed all functional requirements.Industry DataFinishing costs represent an average of 15-25% of total CNC part cost (NAMRC Machining Survey, 2025). Companies that integrate finishing with machining through a single supplier report an average 18% reduction in total part cost and 30% shorter lead times compared to using separate finishing vendors (MFG Monthly, 2025).Related QuestionsWhat surface finishing options are available for CNC parts?What surface treatments are used in sheet metal?What is anodizing?What is electropolishing?

Quick AnswerSurface finishing for CNC machined parts ranges from simple to advanced. For metals: as-machined (32-63 Ra), bead blasting (matte finish), anodizing (Type I, II, III for aluminum), powder coating (any RAL color), plating (chrome, nickel, zinc, gold), electropolishing (bright, clean surface), passivation (corrosion protection for stainless), and media tumbling (smoothing edges). For plastics: vapor smoothing (for ABS/PC), bead blasting, polishing, and painting. SOMI offers all these finishes in-house or through trusted partners.Aluminum FinishingAnodizing Type II: Electrochemical process that creates a decorative, corrosion-resistant surface. Available in clear and colors (black, red, blue, gold). Thickness: 5-25 microns. Cost: $. Hard coat anodizing Type III: Thicker (25-75 microns), harder (RC 60+), excellent wear resistance. Cost: $$. Powder coating: Durable color finish, any RAL color. Thickness: 60-120 microns. Best for enclosures and structural parts. Cost: $. Bead blasting: Uniform matte finish, 4-8 Ra. Cost-effective. Cost: $.Steel and Stainless FinishingElectropolishing: Reverses the electroplating process, removing a thin layer to create a bright, smooth, passivated surface. Ra improves from 32 to 8-16. Improves corrosion resistance. FDA-compliant for food contact. Cost: $$. Passivation: Chemical treatment that removes free iron from stainless steel surface, enhancing corrosion resistance. Required for medical and food-grade parts. Cost: $. Zinc plating: Corrosion protection for carbon steel. Clear, yellow, or black finish. Cost: $. Nickel plating: Decorative, corrosion-resistant. Electroless nickel provides uniform coating on complex geometries.Plastic FinishingAs-machined: Visible tool marks, 32-63 Ra. Acceptable for many internal parts. Bead blasting: Uniform matte finish, hides tool marks. Vapor smoothing: Exposes plastic to solvent vapor, melting the surface to create a glossy, smooth finish. Excellent for ABS and PC. Polishing: Mechanical polishing to high gloss. Time-consuming but produces optical-quality transparency for acrylic and polycarbonate. Painting: Any color, texture, or gloss level. Primer + paint + clear coat for durability.Why Choose SOMI Custom PartsAt SOMI Custom Parts, we offer a complete range of surface finishing services integrated with our CNC machining. Parts go straight from the machine to finishing without intermediate shipping or handling, reducing lead time and eliminating quality risks. Our engineers help you select the optimal finish for your application, considering appearance, durability, regulatory compliance, and budget.Case StudyA consumer electronics company needed aluminum enclosures with a premium black anodized finish and laser-engraved logos. SOMI CNC machined the enclosures, applied Type II black anodizing (20 microns), then laser-engraved the logos through the anodized layer. The final surface had a consistent matte black finish with sharp white logos. The client's branding team approved the finish after evaluating 5 anodizing samples.Industry DataAnodizing is the most common finish for CNC-machined aluminum, specified on approximately 55% of all aluminum parts. Powder coating is the fastest-growing finishing method at 7% annual growth, driven by its durability and environmental advantages (Surface Finishing Association, 2025). Proper surface finishing can extend part service life by 2-5x compared to untreated parts.Related QuestionsHow does surface finishing affect part cost?What surface treatments are available for sheet metal?What is anodizing?What finishing options are available for stainless steel?

The short answer At room temperature, as-built SLM parts land close to wrought: SLM 316L prints at about 570 MPa tensile against 485 to 515 MPa for annealed wrought bar, and SLM Ti6Al4V reaches about 1,200 MPa against roughly 950 MPa wrought. Yield strength is often higher and elongation lower. Fatigue is the gap: as-built surfaces sit at Ra 6.3 to 12.5 micrometres. The comparison, alloy by alloy The headline numbers are better than most engineers expect, and the reason is the process itself. Laser melting solidifies metal at cooling rates between roughly 10 to the third and 10 to the sixth kelvin per second, which is fast enough to produce a much finer grain and cellular structure than casting or even forging. Finer structure means higher yield strength. What it also means is residual stress locked into the part, a rougher surface than any machined equivalent, and anisotropy, because the properties in the build direction are not the same as the properties across it. Transverse tensile values for common alloys, as-built against wrought. Heat treatment trades yield strength for ductility. AlloySLM as-builtSLM after heat treatmentWrought or machined reference 316L stainless570 MPa tensile, 470 MPa yield, 40 percent elongation570 MPa tensile, yield drops to about 380 MPa, 35 percent elongationAnnealed bar: 485 to 515 MPa tensile, 170 to 205 MPa yield Ti6Al4V1,200 MPa tensile, 1,050 MPa yield, 8 percent elongationAbove 930 MPa tensile, above 860 MPa yield, above 10 percent elongationAnnealed wrought: about 950 MPa tensile, about 880 MPa yield AlSi10Mg360 MPa tensile, 240 MPa yield, 6 percent elongationAbove 267 MPa tensile, above 200 MPa yield, about 10 percent elongationCast A360: about 320 MPa tensile Inconel 718960 MPa tensile, 600 MPa yield, 30 percent elongationAnnealed and aged: above 1,240 MPa tensile, above 940 MPa yieldWrought, aged: about 1,100 MPa and up Maraging steel1,100 MPa tensile, 1,000 MPa yield, 8 percent elongationAged: 1,950 MPa tensile, 1,900 MPa yield, 2 percent elongationWrought maraging, aged: 1,900 to 2,000 MPa Two rules fall out of the table. First, as-built prints match or beat the wrought reference on tensile strength for stainless, titanium and aluminium alloys, because of the fine solidification structure. Second, once you heat treat for ductility, the advantage narrows and in some alloys reverses: heat treated Ti6Al4V at above 930 MPa is below the 1,200 MPa of the as-built print, and 316L loses most of its yield advantage. Why as-built yield can beat wrought, and what heat treatment gives back As-built 316L commonly reports yield strength in the 440 to 470 MPa range against 170 to 205 MPa for annealed wrought bar. That is not a measurement error. The fine cellular subgrain structure produced by rapid solidification pins dislocation movement in much the same way that cold work would, and the residual stress in the part adds to the effect. It is also the reason the part can distort: the same residual stress that raises yield strength is released unevenly if a thin section is machined away or if the part is heated without support. Stress relief therefore does two things at once. It removes the internal stresses that cause distortion during subsequent machining and heat treatment, and it gives back ductility. A typical profile is exactly what the table shows: tensile strength essentially unchanged, yield strength reduced toward the wrought value, elongation improved. For a part that has to bend rather than crack in service, that trade is usually the right one. The practical consequence for a drawing is that the mechanical property callout has to name the condition as well as the alloy, because as-built and heat treated are two different materials with the same name. Fatigue is the real difference Static strength is not what breaks most metal parts in service. Fatigue is, and it is where an untreated printed part is weakest. The mechanism is geometric rather than metallurgical: an as-built SLM surface has a roughness of roughly Ra 6.3 to 12.5 micrometres, and every peak of that surface is a stress concentration sitting exactly where the load is highest. A machined surface at Ra 0.8 to 1.6 micrometres removes those notches. Between the two, published comparisons consistently show as-built printed parts losing a substantial share of their fatigue life relative to polished wrought material, even where tensile strength is equal or better. The same part, the same alloy, four different fatigue behaviours. Three further factors move fatigue life up or down, and none of them is visible in a tensile test. Internal porosity, which acts as a crack initiation site, is reduced by hot isostatic pressing. Build orientation matters, because layers loaded in tension across the layer boundaries behave differently from layers loaded within the plane. And residual stress changes the mean stress the part sees. The practical conclusion is that fatigue life for a printed part has to be established by testing the actual geometry and surface condition, not read from a material datasheet. What each post-processing step buys Post-processing is not cosmetic housekeeping. Each step changes a specific failure mode, and the sequence matters. Four steps, four different problems solved. Adding 20 to 40 percent to production time and cost is typical. Support removal and stress relief. Supports are cut away and the part is thermally relieved, usually in a vacuum furnace. This is the step that stops the part moving later. Hot isostatic pressing, where fatigue or sealing matters. Combined heat and pressure close internal porosity and raise density, which improves fatigue behaviour and makes a pressure-tight part possible. It does not fix a rough surface. Machining of functional faces. Sealing faces, bearing bores, threads, spigots and locating features are machined after printing rather than printed to size, because that is the only way to hold the tolerance and the surface finish together on the feature that has to seal or locate. Peening or polishing for fatigue. Shot peening puts the surface into compression, and vibratory polishing removes the peaks. Both improve fatigue life substantially, and neither restores as much as machining the surface to a controlled finish. Where SLM beats machining outright There are geometries where the comparison is not close, because machining cannot produce the feature at all. Conformal cooling channels that follow the contour of a mould insert instead of being drilled in straight lines. Lattice cores that carry a bending load with a fraction of the mass of a solid section. Internal flow passages with no line of sight to the outside. Multi-part assemblies consolidated into a single printed body, which removes joints, fasteners, leak paths and the tolerance stack between them. In these cases the system-level answer can favour printing even when the material is marginally weaker. A lattice-cored bracket that carries the same load at a fraction of the mass is a better bracket than a solid machined one, and a mould insert with conformal cooling can cut cycle time enough to pay for its own printing. The comparison to make is between finished parts in service, not between material datasheets. Where machining still wins, and the rules that decide the outcome For most parts that fit inside the build envelope and do not need internal geometry, machining a wrought billet remains the better answer, for reasons that are structural rather than sentimental. Isotropy and certified stock. A wrought bar comes with a heat number, a mill certificate and properties that are the same in every direction. A printed part has directional properties and needs its own qualification route. Sealing, wearing and sliding surfaces. Faces that seal, bores that carry a bearing, threads that are loaded and fits that slide need a machined surface, whether or not the blank was printed. Large, flat, fine surfaces. A face that has to be flat over a long length and fine in finish is cheaper and more reliable to machine from solid than to print and then machine. Volume economics and size. At production volume, casting or forging plus machining wins on unit cost, and the build envelope limits both the size and the number of parts per build. Design rules are not optional. Minimum wall thickness is roughly 0.8 to 1.0 mm in aluminium and stainless steel and 1.0 to 1.5 mm in titanium, wall height to thickness should stay under about 8 to 1, and thin unsupported walls risk incomplete fusion and porosity. Orientation, support placement and powder reuse all change the result, and reused powder has to be controlled rather than simply topped up. Fatigue-critical parts need a programme. If fatigue governs the design and the geometry cannot be machined afterwards, the right answer is usually a qualification programme with test coupons in the actual orientation and surface condition, not a datasheet comparison. Choosing between them in one pass Five questions separate the two routes quickly. Does the part need an internal channel, a lattice or a consolidated assembly that machining cannot reach? If yes, print it and machine the functional faces afterwards. Is fatigue the governing failure mode? If yes, budget for machining, peening or HIP and test the finished geometry. Are the critical features sealing, wearing or locating surfaces? If yes, they will be machined regardless, so compare the two routes on the same finished part. Is annual volume high enough for tooling to amortise? If yes, casting, forging or stamping plus machining will beat printing on unit cost. Does the part need a mill certificate for its material lot? If yes, that requirement points to wrought stock and therefore to machining. In practice the two processes are complements rather than competitors, and the strongest answer for a hard part is often both: print the geometry that cannot be machined, then machine the surfaces that have to be precise. See SLM metal 3D printing for the additive route, CNC machining for the subtractive one and surface finishing for the post-processing steps that decide fatigue life. Send a part for a print or machine comparison Scope and sources. Mechanical property values were compiled in 2026 from the direct metal laser sintering material data published by Protolabs for 316L, AlSi10Mg, Ti6Al4V, Inconel 718 and maraging steel in the as-built and heat treated conditions, and from a survey of as-printed SLM alloy properties covering the same alloys plus 17-4 PH and CoCrMo, together with the cooling-rate and anisotropy discussion. Surface roughness ranges, minimum wall thickness, aspect ratio guidance, density and the 20 to 40 percent post-processing cost add-on come from an SLM process guide. Wrought reference values for annealed 316L, Ti6Al4V and cast A360 are the standard published minimums for those product forms. These are typical published ranges from general-purpose machines and parameter sets; they are not a specification for any particular build, because properties depend on the machine, the parameters, the orientation, the powder lot and the post-processing route. Confirm properties by testing coupons in the same orientation and condition as the production part. Nothing on this page states or implies a certification held by any supplier, and no fatigue life should be assumed from the numbers above without testing the finished geometry.

The short answer For plastic prototypes, sintered nylon beats everything else: SLS or MJF PA12 prints at roughly 45 to 50 MPa tensile with 15 to 20 percent elongation and near-isotropic strength, while FDM parts carry only 50 to 75 percent of their strength across layers. For metal prototypes, SLM is the strongest route, matching wrought values. The ranking, on one scale Strength is not a property of the printer. It is a property of the polymer that ends up in the part, of how well one layer bonded to the next, and of the direction the load travels through them. Putting the materials that bureaus actually stock on a single scale makes the comparison a comparison of materials rather than of machine names. Ranked by tensile strength alone, the filled filaments win. Ranked by survival, they lose. Two readings of that chart matter more than the rest. The strongest printed plastic is not nylon, it is carbon-fibre or glass-filled nylon at 70 to 110 MPa. But the second reading is the one that decides real parts: plain PA12 reaches its 45 to 50 MPa with 15 to 20 percent elongation, while the filled grades reach twice that strength with only 2 to 5 percent elongation. A stiff glass-filled bracket resists deflection and then shatters; a plain nylon bracket bends, absorbs the impact, and stays in one piece. Tensile strength on its own is the wrong number to design a prototype against, which is why the working metric for a functional prototype is usually the product of strength and elongation, or simply the measured fatigue life. Material and processTensileElongation at breakLoss across layers SLS or MJF nylon PA1245 to 50 MPa15 to 20 percentNone, essentially isotropic SLS nylon PA11About 45 MPaUp to 200 percentNone, essentially isotropic SLS glass-filled PA1270 to 85 MPa2 to 5 percentNone, essentially isotropic SLA tough resin55 to 65 MPa10 to 20 percentNone, cured as one solid SLA standard resin50 to 65 MPa4 to 6 percentNone, cured as one solid FDM carbon-fibre nylon80 to 110 MPa2 to 4 percent35 to 50 percent FDM polycarbonateAbout 60 MPa5 to 8 percent30 to 45 percent FDM ABS35 to 50 MPa5 to 10 percent25 to 40 percent The table also shows why the answer depends on the load path rather than on the material list. A part loaded entirely in the plane of the bed loses nothing to layer bonding no matter which process made it. A part loaded across the layers loses a quarter to half of its strength if it was extruded, and nothing at all if it was sintered or cured in a vat. Elongation is the column that predicts whether a prototype survives its first drop test. Why layer direction decides the answer Fused deposition builds a part by pressing a molten bead against a bead that has already cooled. The bond between those beads is a weld line, and a weld line is never as strong as the material around it. Published guidance puts interlayer bond strength at roughly 50 to 75 percent of bulk strength, and measured tensile values in the build direction typically land at 50 to 70 percent of the in-plane value. That single fact is responsible for most prototype failures that arrive with a datasheet-attached excuse. Sintered nylon behaves differently because there is no seam to speak of. The laser fuses powder inside a bed held near the melting point, the surrounding powder supports the part, and the result is a continuous structure with the same properties whichever way it is loaded. Resin parts behave the same way for a different reason: the part is cured from a liquid, so it is one solid rather than a stack of welds. This is why a printed bracket that has to take a bending load is usually quoted in SLS nylon even though FDM polycarbonate has a higher nominal tensile figure. If the geometry forces FDM, the standard fix is to orient the part so the layer planes sit across the load rather than along it, and to accept that the axis which cannot be reoriented is the weak one. Metal is a different answer Once a prototype has to be metal, the ranking changes completely and only one additive family is competitive. Selective laser melting fuses metal powder into a part that is 99 percent dense or better, and as-built tensile values land near or above the wrought equivalent: roughly 540 MPa for 316L stainless, 900 to 1,100 MPa for Ti6Al4V, 300 to 420 MPa for AlSi10Mg and around 1,000 MPa for Inconel 718. Heat treatment then trades yield strength for ductility, and post-processing decides fatigue life, because an as-built surface at Ra 6 to 12 micrometres is a row of crack starters. For a metal prototype, the strength question and the process question are therefore separate. Printing wins when the geometry cannot be machined - conformal channels, lattice cores, consolidations. Machining wins when the material has to come with a mill certificate and the properties have to be the same in every direction. The full alloy-by-alloy comparison is set out in our answer on SLM metal 3D printing strength, so this page stays on the plastic question of which technology is strongest. Four moves that make a printed prototype stronger Strength is not fixed at the moment the process is chosen. It can be moved, and the cheapest move is the first one. Orientation is free, material and post-processing are not. Orient the load. Rotate the part in the build so the primary tensile stress runs within the layer plane. Sharpe corners cost 50 to 80 percent of fatigue life on their own, so add 2 to 5 mm radii while the model is still open. Add material where it fails. Ribs give stiffness without weight, and gradual section changes spread stress. Thick solid walls are the expensive way to buy the same result. Change the grade, not the process. Moving from plain PA12 to glass-filled PA12 raises stiffness by roughly 50 percent and tensile strength to 70 to 85 MPa, but it cuts elongation to 2 to 5 percent. On a part that sees impact, that is a downgrade dressed as an upgrade. Post-process for the failure mode. Heat treatment relieves the residual stress that makes a part distort after machining. Hot isostatic pressing closes internal porosity and raises fatigue life. Vapour smoothing or bead blasting removes the surface peaks that start cracks. Limits: when a printed prototype is the wrong answer No printed plastic is a production material. A prototype in PA12 tells you how a PA12 part behaves, not how the eventual injection-moulded ABS or die-cast aluminium part will behave. For a test that has to predict production, machine the prototype from the production material instead. Fatigue is not in the datasheet. Sintered PA12 reports a fatigue limit near 10 MPa at one million cycles, which is a fifth of its tensile strength. Any cyclically loaded prototype needs its own test, in the real orientation and the real surface condition. Powder parts are slightly porous. SLS nylon is not fluid-tight without sealing, and reused powder changes crystallinity and therefore properties. If the part has to hold pressure, plan for sealing or a different process. Resin changes outdoors. Standard photopolymers discolour and embrittle under ultraviolet exposure within weeks unless they are coated. A prototype that lives in daylight needs a resin specified for it, or a finish over it. Size is a constraint, not a footnote. Build envelopes cap both part size and the number of parts per build, and a part that exceeds the envelope has to be split and joined, which changes its strength. No certification is implied here. Which quality system applies to a given build is confirmed per programme and per factory in writing, before an order is released. What to send for a strength-led prototype Send the CAD model, the loads and the direction they act in, the failure mode you are worried about, and the quantity of prototypes you need. Those four items decide the process before price enters the conversation: a part with a bending load and an impact requirement points to SLS nylon, the same geometry with an in-plane load at half the cost points to FDM, and a part with a sealing face points to printing followed by machining. See SLS 3D printing for sintered nylon, FDM 3D printing for filament parts and SLA resin printing for fine detail, then send a model for a free engineering review. Send a model with its loads and get a process recommendation Scope and sources. Material property ranges were compiled in 2026 from published 3D printing material comparison tables by 3DPrintMap (PLA about 50 MPa, PA12 SLS about 50 MPa, glass-filled nylon about 70 MPa, PC about 60 MPa, carbon-fibre nylon 80 to 110 MPa) and from a mechanical property guide for printed materials (SLS PA12 at 45 to 50 MPa and 1,700 MPa modulus, MJF PA12 at about 48 MPa and 18 to 20 percent elongation, tough resin at about 55 MPa). The layer-direction loss figures (interlayer bond strength 50 to 75 percent of bulk, in-plane versus Z-axis values at 50 to 70 percent) and the fatigue limit of about 10 MPa for SLS PA12 at one million cycles, together with the PA11 elongation near 200 percent, come from a study of material selection under dynamic loads and from a rapid prototyping engineering guide. Surface roughness and post-processing effects on fatigue follow the SOMI Custom Parts capability set and the SLM figures already published on this site. These are typical published ranges for general-purpose machines and parameter sets, not a specification for any particular build, because strength depends on the machine, the parameters, the orientation, the powder lot and the post-processing route. Confirm properties by testing coupons printed in the same orientation and condition as the production part. Nothing on this page states or implies a certification held by any supplier.

The short answer SLA cures liquid resin with ultraviolet light and holds the finest detail, down to 25 micron layers and Ra 1 to 5 micrometres. SLS sinters nylon powder with no supports, giving the strongest and most near-isotropic parts. FDM extrudes filament and is the cheapest, with 100 to 300 micron layers and visible layer lines. Three processes, three mechanisms The three names are abbreviations for three completely different physical events, and every difference in the table further down follows from that. SLA stands for stereolithography. A build platform sits one layer below the surface of a vat of liquid photopolymer, and an ultraviolet light source traces the cross-section of the part, curing the resin where it touches. The platform drops, fresh resin flows across, and the next layer is traced. Because the part is cured from a liquid as one solid, there are no weld lines and no direction of weakness. The trade-off is that it needs support structures, which leave contact marks that have to be sanded off. SLS stands for selective laser sintering. A roller spreads a thin layer of nylon powder, a laser fuses the cross-section into it, the bed drops, and the roller spreads the next layer. The unfused powder around the part supports it, so no support geometry is needed at all, which is why SLS can produce internal channels, undercuts, living hinges and interlocking assemblies that the other two processes cannot build in one piece. Reused powder is blended back in at a controlled refresh ratio, because the chemistry of the powder changes as it is heated repeatedly. FDM stands for fused deposition modelling, also called material extrusion. A filament of thermoplastic is fed through a heated nozzle which draws the cross-section bead by bead. It is the only one of the three that builds with real engineering thermoplastics rather than resin or nylon powder, which is why the material list runs to ABS, polycarbonate, ASA, PETG and carbon-filled nylon. It is also the only one where the bond between layers is a genuine weak point. Head to head on the numbers that decide Nine attributes, three processes. The tolerance row and the support row settle most real decisions. AttributeSLA resinSLS nylonFDM filament MechanismUltraviolet light cures liquid resinLaser sinters nylon powderNozzle extrudes molten filament Layer height25 to 100 microns80 to 150 microns100 to 300 microns Dimensional tolerancePlus or minus 0.05 to 0.15 mmPlus or minus 0.1 to 0.3 mmPlus or minus 0.2 to 0.5 mm Surface as builtRa 1 to 5 micron, smoothRa 6 to 12 micron, matteRa 10 to 30 micron, layer lines Smallest feature0.1 to 0.3 mm0.2 to 0.6 mm0.5 to 0.8 mm SupportsYes, contact marks to sandNone, powder supports the partYes, on overhangs Strength characterBrittle in impact, very preciseTough, near isotropicTough, weaker across layers Typical part costUSD 15 to 60USD 30 to 150USD 4 to 24 Best single useDetail, appearance, patternsFunctional nylon partsCheap, fast or large parts Read down the tolerance column and the decision for a mating feature is already made: only SLA comes close to the fit a machined part holds, and even it stops an order of magnitude short of CNC. Read across the support row and the decision for a part with an internal channel is made too, because SLS is the only one of the three that can print it without geometry that must be removed afterwards. Where the precision actually sits Layer height is the number buyers ask about first and the number that explains the least, because it sets surface finish and vertical detail rather than dimensional accuracy. A 25 micron layer produces a smoother flank and a crisper curve; it does not make the part more accurate in X and Y, and it roughly doubles the build time for the same height of part. Layer height trades time for finish, while tolerance is set by the machine, the calibration and the material's behaviour after the build. A finer layer buys finish and detail, not accuracy, and it is paid for in machine time. What each one costs Price follows material cost, machine cost and how much labour the post-processing takes. FDM uses cheap commodity filament and needs only manual support removal, so it is the cheapest. SLS uses a machine that costs as much as a house and consumes nylon powder at industrial prices, so it is the most expensive of the three per part, but it also needs the least post-processing because there is nothing to remove. SLA sits between the two on price and, in practice, is the one where the post-processing step is most likely to be underestimated. Price bands for a small prototype. Volume, geometry and finish move the number more than the process label does. Choosing in one question The three are not interchangeable, and the choice is usually settled by a single requirement rather than by a weighted score. Does the part have to look finished? Choose SLA. It is the only one of the three that produces a smooth surface and fine features straight off the machine, and it is the standard route for appearance models, dental and medical models, and master patterns for casting. Does the part have to work, and work in every direction? Choose SLS. Sintered nylon is the strongest of the three, it is isotropic, and the free powder support allows snap fits, hinges and internal geometry that the other two cannot produce. Does the part have to be cheap, fast or large? Choose FDM. Commodity filament, the largest build volumes and the shortest lead time make it the right answer for concept models, jigs, fixtures and large enclosures where layer lines do not matter. When two answers apply, the usual resolution is to print early iterations in FDM, move appearance parts to SLA, and switch the parts that will be loaded to SLS or to machining. Running the same geometry through more than one process is also how tolerance gets settled empirically: print it, measure the features that matter, and correct the model rather than arguing with the datasheet. Limits: where each one fails SLA parts are brittle. Standard resins break at 4 to 6 percent elongation, so thin snap fits and clips crack. Tough and engineering resins improve this to 10 to 20 percent, but they cost more and still behave like a photopolymer rather than like nylon. SLA parts change in daylight. Photopolymers degrade under prolonged ultraviolet exposure, discolouring and embrittling within weeks outdoors. Anything that lives in sunlight needs a specific resin grade or a protective finish. SLS surfaces are matte and grainy. As-built roughness sits at Ra 6 to 12 micrometres, which is fine for function and wrong for a customer-facing appearance part. Dyeing and blasting change the look, not the texture, and the parts are slightly porous unless they are sealed. FDM is weakest where the load crosses the layers. In-plane strength is good, build-direction strength is 50 to 70 percent of it, and layer lines are always visible. It is the wrong choice for fine detail, for fluid-tight parts and for anything judged on appearance. None of the three is a production process. They produce prototype quantities. Above a few hundred parts the economics move to moulding or casting, and the design rules change with them, so a printed part is validated for the process that printed it and not for the one that will make the production units. No certification is implied here. Which quality system applies to a given build is confirmed per programme and per factory in writing before an order is released. How to get a quoted comparison Send the model, the feature that matters most and the quantity, and the same geometry can be quoted across all three processes so the choice is made on your part rather than on a table. See SLA 3D printing for fine detail and smooth surfaces, SLS 3D printing for durable nylon parts and FDM 3D printing for economical large prototypes, then send a file for a free engineering review. Send a model for a three-process quote Scope and sources. Capability ranges were compiled in 2026 from the published tolerance and surface-roughness tables of Modo Rapid (FDM layer 100 to 300 microns, tolerance plus or minus 0.2 to 0.5 mm, Ra 10 to 30 microns; SLA layer 25 to 100 microns, tolerance plus or minus 0.05 to 0.15 mm, Ra 1 to 5 microns; SLS layer 80 to 150 microns, tolerance plus or minus 0.1 to 0.3 mm, Ra 6 to 12 microns) and from the SLA, SLS, FDM and SLM quick comparison published by Zorapid, which also gives minimum feature sizes and the 50 to 75 percent interlayer bond-strength figure quoted by several sources. Cost bands per prototype part come from a three-process cost comparison reporting USD 4 to 24 for FDM, USD 15 to 60 for SLA and USD 30 to 150 for SLS. The 50 to 70 percent build-direction strength loss, the matte as-built SLS texture, resin ultraviolet degradation and the powder refresh-ratio effect come from a rapid prototyping engineering guide and from a process decision guide. These are typical published ranges from general-purpose machines; building orientation, geometry, material grade and post-processing all move them. Nothing on this page states or implies a certification held by any supplier.

The short answer Print when the question is shape, and machine when the question is performance. 3D printing delivers a first article in one to three days for USD 50 to 500, holding about ±0.1 to 0.3 mm. CNC holds ±0.01 to 0.05 mm in production material but takes three to seven days and costs USD 80 to 2,000. The rule: shape versus performance Almost every prototype decision reduces to one question. Is this iteration trying to establish whether the design is right, or whether it works? A shape question - does the housing feel correct in the hand, do the two halves close, does the cable exit in the right place - is answered by the fastest process that can hold the geometry, and that is printing. A performance question - does the bracket bend under the specified load, does the seal hold at temperature, does the thread strip at the specified torque - is only answered by a part made from the production material by a method that gives production properties, and that is machining from billet. The reason the distinction matters is that a printed prototype answers a performance question wrongly, and expensively. A test that fails on a printed part is ambiguous: it may have failed because the design is wrong, or because the material and the layer direction were wrong. A test that fails on a machined part is unambiguous. That clarity is what the extra cost of machining buys, and it is usually worth paying once per programme rather than on every iteration. Stage by stage: what to print and what to machine Four stages, and only one of them needs a machined part. StageQuestion being asked3D printingCNC machining Concept and formDoes it look and feel right?Best fit, hours to a partPossible but costly and slow Fit and assemblyDo the parts mate?Good to about 0.3 mmAccurate to about 0.02 mm Functional testDoes it survive the load?Wrong material, wrong layersSame properties as production Thermal and chemicalDoes it hold up in service?Rarely representativeReal polymer or real metal Sealing and threadsWill it seal and hold torque?Usually needs machining afterMachined as standard Pre-production samplingIs the design frozen?Unit cost stays flatUnit cost falls with quantity Read the middle column to decide. The last two columns only tell you which process answers it. In practice the pipeline runs in one direction. Print the first five to ten iterations at USD 50 to 500 each and change geometry freely, because there is no setup and no programming to redo. Then machine the one or two designs that are close to final, at USD 200 to 2,000 each, and use those for the tests that have to predict production. Attempting the same tests on a printed part is cheaper and less informative, and a programme that skips the machined stage usually discovers the difference during tooling, which is the most expensive place to find it. The tolerance question settles most cases Where a prototype contains a press fit, a bearing bore, a sealing face or a threaded joint, the decision is already made. Additive processes in plastic hold roughly plus or minus 0.1 to 0.3 mm as a practical standard, which is adequate for form and fit checking and insufficient for anything that seals or rotates. Machining holds plus or minus 0.01 to 0.05 mm and an as-machined surface of Ra 0.8 to 3.2 micrometres, which is production-representative straight off the machine. This is the chart that decides it. Anything that seals or rotates lives to the left of 0.05 mm. Where the money crosses over The cost argument is not printing versus machining in general. It is printing versus machining at a particular quantity, in a particular material, with a particular geometry. Quantity of one design3D printingCNC machiningWhat usually wins 1 partUSD 30 to 80USD 80 to 200Printing, on cost and speed 5 partsUSD 30 to 80 eachUSD 40 to 120 eachPrinting, on cost 20 partsUSD 25 to 60 eachUSD 30 to 80 eachClose, decided by tolerance 100 partsUSD 25 to 60 eachUSD 20 to 50 eachMachining, setup amortised 10 iteration roundsTotal USD 150 to 500USD 800 to 2,000 each roundPrinting, by an order of magnitude Two structural facts sit behind that table. CNC carries a programming and fixturing cost of roughly USD 500 to 3,000 that has to be paid once per design, so the first part is expensive and the hundredth is not. Printing carries almost no setup, so the first part and the hundredth cost about the same, which is a strength at low volume and a weakness at high volume. Published crossover points cluster between roughly 20 and 100 parts for plastics, and as low as 5 to 20 parts for metal, where printing stays expensive per part and machining gets cheap quickly. Below the crossover, print; above it, machine; and if the quantity is somewhere in the middle and the part has a sealing face, machine. Limits: what printing cannot validate Material properties are not transferable. A printed part behaves like the printed material, not like the eventual moulded or cast one. Dimensional and functional conclusions can be drawn; a strength, creep or temperature conclusion cannot. Anisotropy is a hidden variable in the test result. Printed properties depend on build orientation, so two identical models printed in two orientations can fail at different loads. Machined parts are uniform in every direction. Printed parts are not certified stock. Wrought bar arrives with a heat number and a mill certificate. When a regulated programme needs traceability, that requirement points to machining. For machined parts from controlled stock, this is met by default. Machining is not free either. Thin walls that vibrate, deep pockets that need long tools, hard materials that need special cutters and features that require five setups all raise the price of the machined route sharply, occasionally past the point where printing plus a machined finish is cheaper. Neither route covers the production step. A validated prototype does not commit you to a process for production units. Above a few hundred parts the decision moves again, to moulding, casting or stamping, and the design rules move with it. No certification is implied here. Which quality system applies to a given build or a given machining order is confirmed per programme and per factory in writing, before an order is released. How to start Send the model, the volume you expect in the first year, the material you intend to use in production, and the tests the prototype has to survive. Those four items decide the route before price is discussed, and they also decide whether the answer is a printed part, a machined part or the hybrid version where the geometry is printed and the sealing faces, bores and threads are machined afterwards with 0.5 to 2 mm of allowance left on them. See CNC machining for production-representative prototypes, SLS 3D printing for functional nylon iterations and plastic injection molding for the volume step after the prototype is approved. Send a model for a print or machine recommendation Scope and sources. Cost, tolerance and lead-time ranges were compiled in 2026 from a comparison of 3D printing and CNC machining by quantity (USD 30 to 80 for a printed part against USD 80 to 200 for a machined one at quantity one, crossing over around 20 to 50 parts, and printing at Ra 6.3 to 32 microns against Ra 0.8 to 3.2 microns for machining), from a 2026 precision parts comparison (programming and setup of USD 500 to 3,000 on the CNC side, a break-even zone of 50 to 100 parts, and printed accuracy of plus or minus 0.08 to 0.25 mm), and from a additive versus subtractive guide (first articles in one to three days for printing against five to fifteen days for machining including programming, prototype prices of USD 50 to 500 against USD 200 to 2,000, and the 0.5 to 2 mm machining allowance used in hybrid workflows). Cost-per-part figures for the printed route are order-of-magnitude planning figures for simple plastic parts and move with size, material and finish. Nothing on this page is a quotation, and nothing here states or implies a certification held by any supplier; quality systems are confirmed per programme and per factory in writing before production.