Never compare only the unit price. Use this checklist: (1) What cavity count is the quote based on? (2) Is tooling amortization included or separate? (3) What material specification is assumed? (4) What secondary operations are included vs excluded? (5) Are PPAP costs included? (6) What is the lead time? A higher per-part price from a 16-cavity mold may be cheaper overall than a lower per-part price from a 4-cavity mold when tooling is amortized.
Quote comparison template:
| Comparison Point | Supplier A | Supplier B | Supplier C | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per-part price (50k/yr) | $0.85 | $0.72 | $0.95 | — |
| Cavity count | 8 | 4 | 16 | Per-part price must be compared at same cavity count |
| Tooling cost | $18,000 | $12,000 | $28,000 | Lower tooling may mean fewer cavities |
| Tooling amortized per part | $0.12 | $0.08 | $0.19 | Over 150k parts (3 years) |
| Material grade specified | 316L per MPIF 35 | "316L" (no standard) | 316L per MPIF 35 | Vague spec may mean lower quality powder |
| Secondary ops included | M3 tapping | NOT INCLUDED | M3 tapping + passivation | Hidden cost if not included |
| PPAP / qualification included | Yes — first article + CpK | Extra cost | Yes — Level 3 | Can add $3-8k to program cost |
| Lead time (tool + first article) | 12 weeks | 10 weeks | 16 weeks | Affects program timing |
| Total 3-year program cost | $85,000 | $86,000 | $92,000 | Including tooling, parts, and extras |
- No cavity count stated — they may quote single-cavity to minimize tooling cost
- Vague material spec like "stainless steel" instead of "MIM-316L per MPIF Standard 35"
- Secondary ops "to be discussed" — these always cost more when quoted separately
- No density guarantee — means they may not control sintering quality
- "We'll hold any tolerance" without supporting CpK data — means they don't understand MIM capability limits