For thin metal components under 2 mm thick, stamping and MIM are often competing process options. The choice depends on geometry complexity, volume, and material requirements.
Head-to-head comparison:| Factor | MIM | Progressive Die Stamping |
|---|---|---|
| Geometry | 3D shapes, variable thickness, internal cavities | 2D or 2.5D shapes, uniform thickness |
| Wall thickness | 0.3-10 mm (variable in same part) | Equal to sheet metal gauge (uniform) |
| Material options | 20+ alloys including stainless, Ti, Inconel | Limited to sheet metal forms of each alloy |
| Tooling cost | $8,000-30,000 | $15,000-80,000 (progressive die) |
| Tooling lead time | 6-10 weeks | 12-20 weeks |
| Per-part cost at 100k/yr (5g, 316L) | $0.35-0.80 | $0.10-0.30 |
| Per-part cost at 1M/yr | $0.15-0.35 | $0.04-0.12 |
| Design change cost | Moderate (mold modification) | High (die rebuild) |
| Secondary ops | Minimal | Deburring, sometimes plating |
Choose MIM when:
- The part has 3D contours, internal cavities, bosses, or variable wall thickness
- The material must be stainless steel, titanium, or a specialty alloy
- Annual volume is 50,000-500,000 parts
- Multiple features can be consolidated into one molded part (reducing assembly)
- The part is essentially 2D with bends (bracket, clip, spring, shield)
- Material is a standard stamped alloy (steel, aluminum, brass)
- Annual volume exceeds 500,000 parts
- The part is large (over 50 mm) and thin (under 1 mm)
For simple 2D shapes at high volume (>500k/yr), stamping is 50-70% cheaper. For complex 3D shapes that would require multiple stamping operations and assembly, MIM is often cheaper because the entire geometry is produced in a single molding step.
A common hybrid approach: use stamping for simple high-volume components (shields, contacts, springs) and MIM for complex 3D components (housings, connectors, mechanisms) within the same assembly.