Carbide vs PCD Cost-per-Part Calculator

How to use this calculator

1. Identify one machining operation and two tools already qualified to meet its quality requirements. Pick the currency at the top of the calculator panel; it sets the formatting only and converts nothing.
2. Enter both tool prices on the same currency and accounting basis, and theacceptable parts per tool, including usable edges and excluding paid reconditioning.
3. Enter the tool-changing time: the minutes for one change, the same for both tools. The machine is assumed stopped and one operator occupied throughout.
4. Enter the machine hourly cost and the operator hourly cost, on one consistent basis. The machine cost must exclude any operator cost you charge separately, so no labour is counted twice.
5. Optionally enter a batch quantity to see the tools to buy, the tool changes, the actual outlay and the allocated saving for that many parts.

Results update as you type. The headline figure is how much the cheaper tool saves per part: "PCD saves" when PCD is cheaper, "Carbide saves" when carbide is, or "No difference per part", with the saving as a share of the dearer tool's cost beneath it. The per-part table compares tooling, tool-changing and total cost for each tool, and a batch quantity adds a second table for that many parts. Replace the illustrative defaults with your own quotes and trial results; they are not market prices or performance promises, and current prices, parts per tool and times are unknown until you supply them.

What do I need to enter?

• Carbide tool price and PCD tool price — what one tool costs, up to two decimal places. Zero is allowed; blank is not.
• Carbide parts per tool and PCD parts per tool — the whole number of acceptable parts each priced tool makes, from 1 to 1,000,000,000.
• Tool-changing time — minutes for one change, the same for both tools, up to two decimal places.
• Machine hourly cost and Operator hourly cost — per hour, up to two decimal places. Both run for the whole tool change.
• Batch quantity — optional, a whole number of parts up to 1,000,000,000. Blank or zero means no batch.

Prices, times and hourly costs can each go up to 1,000,000. A blank field withholds the result rather than counting as zero.

What do the results show?

• PCD saves per part — the main figure. It reads "Carbide saves per part" or "No difference per part" when that is the case, with the saving as a share of the dearer tool's cost.
• Carbide cost per part and PCD cost per part — each tool's tooling plus tool-changing cost for one part.
• Saving over this batch — the allocated saving for your batch quantity. Dashes until you enter one.
• Per part table — tooling cost, tool-changing cost and total for carbide, PCD and the difference.
• Batch table — tools to buy, tool changes, tool purchase, tool-changing cost, actual outlay and allocated cost for your batch.

How is tooling and tool-changing cost per part calculated for carbide and PCD?

Each tool's cost per part is its price spread over the parts it makes, plus the cost of one tool change spread over the same parts. The comparison is a steady-state allocation: it spreads each change over the tool's parts rather than claiming a batch contains that many changes.

Working the illustrative defaults through: one change costs5 × (£60 + £30) ÷ 60 = £7.50. Carbide tooling is£50 ÷ 500 = £0.1000 and changing is £7.50 ÷ 500 = £0.0150, so the combined cost is £0.1150 a part. For PCD, tooling is£300 ÷ 6,000 = £0.0500 and changing is £7.50 ÷ 6,000 = £0.00125, shown as £0.0013, so the combined cost is £0.05125, shown as £0.0513.

The saving is exactly £0.06375 a part, shown as £0.0638. For a batch of 1,000 parts the allocated saving is £0.06375 × 1,000 = £63.75. It comes from the exact difference, not from 1,000 times the displayed £0.0638 (which would give £63.80), and no figure is rounded before it is added up. Which tool is cheaper, and whether two combined costs are exactly equal, is decided from the unrounded values; per-part figures show four decimal places, batch figures two, with an exact half rounding away from zero.

What do tooling cost and tool-changing cost include?

• Tooling cost: the price of one complete new consumable tool, or one complete set used together, spread over the acceptable parts it makes.
• Tool-changing cost: the time to change the tool, charged at the machine and operator rates together and spread over the parts per tool. The machine is stopped and one operator is occupied for the whole change. It is not a production-job setup.
• Tooling and tool-changing cost: the sum of the two, per part. It is not a total operation cost: cycle time and everything else listed below are left out.

The two hourly costs must not overlap. The machine hourly cost excludes any operator cost you charge separately, and the cutting tools being compared; the operator hourly cost is the loaded rate for the person changing the tool. If you only have an all-in rate, enter it as the machine cost and set the operator cost to 0.

Why is the batch saving different from what I would buy?

The allocated batch saving is an estimate of the cost consumed by a batch, not the exact purchase outlay. Buying is different: you pay for complete tools up front, including the parts left over once the batch is done. With a batch quantity entered, the batch table shows the whole tools to buy, the tool changes, the actual outlay and the allocated cost for each option. The outlay never feeds the tooling and tool-changing cost per part or the allocated saving.

For example, carbide at £50 for 500 parts and PCD at £300 for 6,000 parts cost £0.1000 and £0.0500 a part in tooling, so PCD consumes less. A 1,000-part batch still needs two carbide tools (£100.00) against one PCD tool (£300.00), so carbide needs less purchase outlay. With one change per tool fitted, the actual outlay is £115.00 for carbide (£100.00 of tools and £15.00 of changes) and £307.50 for PCD (£300.00 and £7.50), while the allocated cost is £115.00 against £51.25. A tool count is never rounded down and never includes a spare at an exact boundary: 400 parts need one 400-part tool, 401 need two.

What does this calculator assume and leave out?

The result is a conditional cost comparison for one operation, not a recommendation of a tool material, a quote or a guaranteed saving.

• Scope: tooling and tool changing only. Cycle time, initial setup, materials, scrap and rework, reconditioning and costs not in your hourly rates are excluded.
• Allocation: one tool change is spread over each tool's parts. The batch table's actual outlay counts one change for every tool bought, the first included; residual tool capacity and inventory you already hold are outside the figures.
• Tool changing: the machine is stopped and one operator is occupied for the whole changing time, and both tools take that same time. If that is not true in your shop, the model does not represent it.
• Quality: both tools make the same acceptable part at their entered parts per tool. Scrap is not accounted for automatically.
• Rates: the machine rate excludes the cutting tools compared and any operator cost you charge separately. No lost revenue or opportunity cost is added to the time the machine is stopped.
• Edges and reconditioning: parts per tool counts usable edges once, and paid regrinding or re-tipping is excluded from both price and parts per tool.
• Tax and currency: every money entry uses one currency and tax basis. No VAT or sales-tax treatment is applied and nothing is converted.
• Life and speed: no universal PCD life, price or speed multiplier is applied, and cycle time is not an input, so a faster cut is not counted. Parts per tool and the changing time should come from a trial or a labelled estimate.

Parts per tool must count acceptable finished parts. If a part has several holes and your figure is quoted in holes per tool, convert it to parts first; the calculator cannot detect or convert that mismatch. Prices, rates and times may be zero, but not blank: if both hourly costs are zero, only tooling cost is compared, and the calculator says so.

What do people often get wrong about PCD and carbide costs?

• "Purchase price alone determines value." Telcon distinguishes tool price from process economics, which is why the time spent changing tools is counted here.
• "A cheaper cost per part means less cash is needed for every batch." Whole tools are bought up front, so a short batch can need more purchase outlay even when the per-part cost is lower.
• "A universal PCD life or speed multiplier is reliable." Exactaform ties performance to the application, so quoted claims are not universal defaults.
• "Regrinds provide free extra tool life." Telcon includes reconditioning charges in its lifetime comparisons, and this calculator leaves them out.
• "This output is a complete part cost or selling price." Cycle time, setup, materials, scrap and other manufacturing costs are excluded.

Where does the guidance come from?

The price-over-output principle and the cautions about suitability, downtime and reconditioning come from these pages, opened on 5 October 2026. Supplier examples and claims are context, not calculator rules.

• Exactaform: PCD vs carbide tools
• Telcon: carbide articles and tooling cost comparisons
• Gera Tools: Tooling Cost per Part Calculator

PCD means polycrystalline diamond. The equations above are this calculator's own accounting assumptions and dimensional arithmetic, not a procedure those pages mandate, and so is the batch outlay, which counts whole tools and one change for each.

Important information

Important: this is guidance, not financial advice or a machining-process recommendation. Results depend on your prices, qualified tool life, times, hourly costs and the assumptions shown.

Frequently asked questions