Technology Comparisons

There is a place for each of the traditional metal-forming processes: each has its own strong suits as well as its limitations. But wherever a component fabrication choice exists between MIM and one or more of the other processes, it pays to see how they stack up in a head-to-head comparison.

The following table shows how the four major processes fare in some of the more important parameters to consider.

Density 98% 88% 100% 98%
Tensile Strength High Low High High
Elongation High Low High High
Hardness High Low High High
Complexity High Low High Medium
Surface Finish High Medium High Medium
Production Volumes High High Low Medium
Range of Materials High High High Medium-High
Cost Medium Low High Medium


MIM vs. Conventional PM

    • MIM can produce geometries that eliminate secondary operations
    • MIM offers superior density, corrosion performance, strength, ductility
    • MIM can combine two or more PM components into one, reducing part count
    • MIM parts offer superior magnetic performance


MIM vs. Machining

    • MIM designs save material and weight
    • MIM provides cost savings through better material utilization—sprues and runners can be reground and reused as feedstock with no compromise to final properties
    • Molding from a single tool eliminates multiple set-up operations
    • Difficult-to-machine materials can be molded into a net shape


MIM vs. Investment Casting

    • MIM can produce thinner wall sections, sharper cutting points
    • MIM produces better surface finish
    • MIM is better for small-diameter blind and through holes
    • MIM greatly reduces requirements for finish machining
    • MIM produces high volumes of small components at a lower cost, faster lead times