FDM vs resin cost: compare the true cost per successful part.

FDM and resin printing do not have one universal cost ranking. A filament workflow can require long machine occupancy and support removal; a resin workflow can add washing, curing, solvent, gloves, release-film wear, and more hands-on cleanup. Plate layout, part geometry, equipment already owned, and the percentage of failed jobs can reverse the result. This calculator compares two defined workflows rather than declaring one technology cheaper everywhere.

Replace every editable example with a quote, receipt, slicer result, power measurement, timed process, or production record from your shop. The output answers a narrow decision: which feasible method has the lower modeled cost per successful part at a stated demand? It is not another general customer-pricing calculator and it does not add marketplace fees, shipping, overhead, or profit automatically.

What to compare on the FDM and resin sides

Use mutually exclusive lines. If nozzle wear or release-film wear is in the per-job consumables allowance, do not also bury the same expense in another maintenance rate. Likewise, material predicted by the slicer should already include supports when the displayed total says it does.

The successful-part formula

Start with the complete cost of one attempted job. Add material including routine waste, electricity, active labor, post-processing, consumables, and the equipment depreciation allocated to that job. Then divide by the success rate and by the number of acceptable parts produced by a successful job.

Division by the success rate is different from simply adding the failure percentage. At a 10% failed-job rate, dividing by 0.90 spreads the expected cost of ten attempts across nine successful jobs. Never enter 100%: a process that produces no successful jobs has no finite cost per successful part.

Material, supports, and routine waste

On the FDM side, use total filament consumed by the production slice, not only the weight remaining in the finished object. Supports, brim, raft, prime tower, color-change purge, and rejected remnants can matter. Convert the actual spool purchase price to a cost per gram, then add only routine waste not already present in the slicer total.

On the resin side, use total predicted resin for the plate, including raft and supports where included. Do not charge the job for all reusable liquid temporarily in the vat. Routine loss can cover measured residue, filtering loss, drips, and test exposure. Keep this recurring loss separate from complete failed builds so the reason for a cost change remains visible.

For a material-only audit, use the filament cost per print calculator or the dedicated resin cost per part calculator. Bring their measured job totals back here only once.

Equipment depreciation is not first-year cash

Depreciation spreads the modeled ownership cost over an expected useful life or productive output. It helps compare the economic consumption of equipment per part. The equipment purchase is different: it is a cash payment when the printer and required accessories are acquired. Counting the full purchase and depreciation together in one per-part result would double count the same investment.

Use a realistic productive life rather than the maximum theoretical number of hours. Include required wash and cure hardware on the resin side and required enclosures, dryers, or other dedicated equipment on the FDM side. Optional tools already shared across both workflows can be excluded from both or allocated consistently.

Electricity, labor, and post-processing

Energy cost should use average measured watts, duration, and the seller's actual tariff. Account for peripherals that differ between methods. The 3D printer electricity guide explains the kilowatt-hour conversion. Electricity may be a small line in one shop and still belongs in a transparent comparison.

Labor means attended time, not every hour the machine runs unattended. Time setup, plate or bed preparation, part removal, washing, curing, support removal, sanding, inspection, cleanup, and routine handling. Multiply active hours by a defensible labor rate. The 3D printer hourly-rate guide can help separate machine occupancy from owner labor.

Consumables need method-specific inputs

Resin production can consume IPA or another wash fluid, gloves, wipes, filters, paper, release film, tanks, and cleaning supplies. FDM can consume nozzles, build surfaces, adhesive, purge material not captured elsewhere, and maintenance parts. Estimate these from purchase and replacement records over comparable jobs. A blank input means zero cost, not proof that the workflow has no wear.

Environmental controls and safe handling can also require ventilation, storage, spill supplies, or disposal. Include a cost only when it belongs to the actual workflow and is not already allocated through equipment or overhead. This comparison does not provide safety instructions; follow the printer and material manufacturer's current safety data and local rules.

Batching changes the denominator

Enter the number of acceptable parts on one successful job, not the number placed in the slicer. Resin exposure time can stay similar when more copies fit across a plate, while wash, cure, support, and inspection work can rise with quantity. FDM duration often grows as copies are added, although setup and some labor can be shared. Neither pattern is guaranteed; slice the actual batch on the intended machine.

Compare batches that satisfy the same quality standard and fit normal production. An artificially full plate that raises failure risk or creates damaged parts is not cheaper. If partial failures are common, use recorded good parts per attempt instead of pretending every failed job loses the entire batch.

Failure rates should come from comparable jobs

Group history by printer, material, profile, orientation, layer settings, support strategy, and product family. Divide failed attempts by total attempts over a useful period. New work can begin with an explicitly conservative editable assumption, then be replaced with observations. The failed-print cost calculator provides a deeper model when failures consume only part of the normal material or labor.

First-year cash outlay and annual demand

Monthly demand converts to annual demand by multiplying by twelve. The first-year view treats equipment as an upfront cash purchase and uses cash operating cost per successful part, excluding depreciation. This exposes a method that looks inexpensive after depreciation but needs substantially more cash to start.

This formula is a planning view, not a financial statement. Financing, tax depreciation, resale value, repair timing, inventory, working capital, and equipment bought in another year can change cash flow. Use the 3D printer ROI calculator when revenue, payback period, and target return are part of the decision.

How crossover demand works

Crossover demand is the annual quantity where the two modeled first-year cash totals are equal. It can exist when one method has higher equipment cost but lower cash operating cost per part. The calculator solves the difference in upfront equipment cost against the difference in per-part cash cost.

A negative or undefined result means there is no positive crossover under the entered assumptions. Capacity must also be feasible: a lower-cost method that cannot produce the required monthly quantity is not a valid answer without additional equipment, shifts, or outsourcing.

Cost cannot decide quality, speed, or geometry

The lower currency result is not automatically the better process. Detail, surface finish, dimensional behavior, strength direction, temperature and chemical resistance, supported features, hollowing and drainage, support scars, maximum part size, color, and required certification can eliminate one option before cost is compared. Print duration and throughput also depend on machine, layer strategy, plate utilization, geometry, and post-processing capacity.

First define an acceptable part and production deadline. Then compare FDM and resin versions that both meet those requirements. Record non-financial reasons next to the output so a small cost difference does not override a decisive quality, safety, or delivery constraint.

Sources and an honest comparison workflow

Prusa's official printing price calculator article demonstrates editable inputs for material, machine, electricity, time, and labor. Formlabs' official cost and return guidance discusses equipment, materials, consumables, labor, and total ownership. They are useful primary manufacturer examples, not universal price lists. MakerGauge does not copy their hardware prices or treat either manufacturer's workflow as neutral market data.

1. Slice the same production-ready geometry for each feasible process.
2. Measure active labor, total consumed material, energy, and good-part output.
3. Run conservative, expected, and improved failure-rate cases.
4. Compare modeled cost, first-year cash, capacity, and non-financial constraints separately.

Privacy, methodology, and independence

The comparison is calculated from values entered in the browser and does not require customer names, files, order IDs, or other personal data. Keep sensitive production records outside the input fields. MakerGauge's methodology explains scope, precision, rounding, and update practices; the editorial policy covers sourcing, corrections, and commercial independence.