Costs in plastic thermoforming are primarily determined by design, material selection, and tooling design. Many cost drivers are not immediately apparent and often only become visible late in the development process. This is precisely where unnecessary costs frequently arise, costs that can be avoided with the right measures.
Simon Andreß
Updated on August 26, 2026
→ Request thermoformed part now
For many companies, the biggest cost drivers in thermoforming are not immediately apparent. Especially without experience in design and tooling, they often only become visible once adjustments are already requiring significant effort and incurring additional costs.
In addition to material usage, tool complexity and the associated process steps play a particularly important role. It is often underestimated that even small adjustments in the design can have a major impact. This is precisely where the greatest potential lies for reducing costs in thermoforming. We support you in designing your components to be cost-optimized from the very beginning.
These tips can be considered right from the start of your project to keep the total cost of your plastic thermoformed parts as economical as possible.
With thermoforming tools, you have the following options:
The choice of material also determines the costs involved in thermoforming. Therefore, you should:
In the following sections, we explain these steps in detail.
Producing multiple parts per tool increases output per cycle and can therefore reduce unit costs.
An effective way to reduce unit costs is the efficient use of the mold. The goal is to achieve the highest possible output per cycle. Multi-cavity molds are standard practice in thermoforming and allow for the simultaneous production of multiple identical components. However, combining different components in a single mold also offers significant savings potential. See how we use multi-cavity molds in our case study with NAEXT.
Moving tool components increase tooling complexity and maintenance requirements, resulting in higher thermoforming costs.
Complex part geometries, particularly undercuts, require the use of moving elements in the tool. These significantly increase thermoforming costs and maintenance requirements.
Therefore, you should check during the design phase whether the workpiece can be adapted to eliminate this complexity.
Typical optimizations include:
Selecting a material based on the actual requirements prevents unnecessary overengineering and enables a more cost-effective solution with the same functionality.
A common mistake in practice is selecting a material that offers more capabilities than are actually necessary. This so-called “oversizing” unnecessarily leads to higher costs in thermoforming. Instead, material selection should consistently follow the bottom-up principle: Choose exactly the material that precisely meets the requirements.
This ensures a more economical solution with the same functionality.
Pre-colored sheet material can eliminate the need for subsequent painting, avoiding an additional process step and the associated costs.
In many projects, coloring is performed later in the process, such as through plastic painting. This adds an extra step that costs time and money.
If pre-colored semi-finished products are used instead, this step can be eliminated. However, this requires that the quantities and the supply chain allow for such procurement.
Reinforcement structures such as ribs can maintain part stability despite reduced material thickness, lowering material consumption and unit costs.
Material is one of the biggest cost factors in thermoforming. That’s why it’s particularly worthwhile to focus on this area. Through clever design, material thickness can be reduced without compromising stability. Reinforcing structures such as ribs are often used for this purpose.
Typical benefits include:
When optimizing material thickness and part geometry, the dimensional tolerances that can be achieved in the manufacturing process must also be taken into account. Find out more in our guide to tolerances in plastic thermoforming.
The greatest potential for cost savings in thermoforming doesn’t arise during production, but rather during the development and design phase. By focusing early on material-efficient design, simple geometries, and tool-friendly construction, you lay the foundation for consistently low unit costs.
Tip: With our DfM analysis software, we check your data for thermoformability and determine the best cost-benefit ratio for you.
A multi-cavity mold or mold optimization is particularly worthwhile for medium to high production volumes. As production volume increases, the investment costs are spread out more effectively, while more efficient molds and shorter cycle times significantly reduce unit costs.
