Two tooling quotes for the same part can differ by 300% and both be honest. How to read what is really being offered, normalise quotes for a fair comparison, and avoid the cheapest quote turning into the most expensive tool.
A buyer once shared three quotes for the same two-cavity housing tool: $28,000, $46,000 and $81,000. His instinct was to treat the cheapest as a bargain and the most expensive as greedy. When we normalised them, the picture reversed. The $28,000 tool was a single-cavity prototype-grade tool in pre-hardened steel with a cold runner and no hot-half warranty. The $81,000 tool was hardened, hot-runnered, guaranteed for a million shots and included two rounds of trials and samples. They were not three prices for the same thing. They were three different products.
That is the first lesson of tooling quotes: you are rarely comparing like with like.
What actually drives tool cost
- Cavitation. Each additional cavity adds steel, machining and balancing work, but lowers piece price. The right number depends on volume and cycle time, not on the lowest tool price.
- Steel. Pre-hardened P20 is cheaper to machine; hardened H13 or stainless lasts far longer and holds a polish. Life expectancy should be stated in shots.
- Runner system. Hot runners cost more up front but remove runner scrap, shorten cycles and improve process control. Cold runners are simpler and cheaper to build.
- Actions. Every slide, lifter or unscrewing mechanism for an undercut adds cost and maintenance. DFM can often remove them.
- Surface finish. High polish and textures add time and specialist work.
- Tool size and mould base standard.
- What is included after the build: trials, samples, dimensional reports, corrections and warranty.
The questions a good quote answers
If a quote does not answer these clearly, ask before comparing:
- Number of cavities and expected cycle time.
- Steel grade and hardness for cavity, core and inserts.
- Hot or cold runner, and the hot runner brand if applicable.
- Number and type of actions.
- Guaranteed tool life in shots.
- Number of trials and sample quantities included.
- Who pays for corrections caused by part design changes versus tool faults.
- Lead time to first samples (T1), and to approved parts.
- Ownership of the tool and design files, and terms for moving the tool.
- Payment schedule and what triggers each payment.
Normalising quotes
To compare fairly, build a simple table with the same rows for every supplier: the specification items above, plus total tool cost, piece price at your annual volume and the cost per part including amortised tooling over the expected life. Then look at total cost over three to five years, not just the tool price.
Very often, a tool that costs 40% more but runs 15% faster with no runner scrap is the cheaper option within the first year.
Warning signs
- A lead time far shorter than the others. Either the supplier has unusual capacity, or the schedule is optimistic.
- No mention of steel or tool life. Assume the minimum.
- Corrections "at cost" with no limit. You will pay for the supplier's learning.
- Prices that change significantly once you send the final 3D data. The quote was a guess.
- Unwillingness to share the tool design for review before steel is cut.
Choosing the toolmaker, not just the quote
Price matters, but the factors that decide whether a tool succeeds are capability and communication: experience with similar parts and materials, design review discipline, measuring equipment, trial facilities and how clearly the supplier reports progress and problems. A visit, or at least a detailed capability questionnaire and references, is worth far more than a few percent of tool price.
The short version
Specify what you need, ask every supplier to quote against the same specification, normalise what comes back and compare total cost over the life of the product. The cheapest quote is often the most expensive tool you will ever buy.
