WonksAnonymous
Rollstock Versus Premade Pouches: Comparing the Total Packaging Cost
How to put rollstock and premade pouches on one cost basis: material, waste, labor, equipment and order structure, with two worked scenarios and a break-even formula.
A plant can package a product on a form-fill-seal machine fed with film, or on a machine that fills pouches bought ready-made. The decision question is which route costs less per good pack at your volume, your number of designs and your product. The film is usually cheaper than finished pouches, but that is only one line of the bill.
The short answer is that neither format wins everywhere. Rollstock tends to win on material cost per pack at steady, high volume with few designs. Premade pouches tend to win when volumes are lower, designs are many and runs are short, because material waste, changeovers and minimum orders then weigh more than the price gap per unit. The sections below put both routes on one cost basis so you can find where the crossover sits for your own inputs.
Two routes, one difference
In the rollstock route, the plant buys printed or plain film on a roll. A form-fill-seal machine, for example a vertical form-fill-seal (VFFS) machine, forms the film into a pouch or bag around a forming tube, fills it with product and seals it, all in one machine. The converting step, turning flat film into a pouch, happens in your plant.
In the premade route, a converter makes finished pouches and ships them to you in cartons or stacks. A premade pouch machine opens each pouch, fills it and seals it. The converting step happens at the supplier, and the price of the pouch includes that work.
Premade pouches often allow features such as zippers, spouts and shaped or stand-up formats that can be harder or costlier to form inline. Rollstock usually lets the buyer pay for film rather than for finished pouches. Both statements describe tendencies, not rules, and they depend on the pack, the film and the machine.
The cost model
Use the same period, the same units and good packs only, as in Cost per Good Pack: A More Useful Measure Than Nameplate Speed. Calculate each route separately, then compare.
packaging material per pack
rollstock: film cost per pack = film price per kg x film mass per pack
(or film price per 1,000 m2 x film area per pack)
premade: pouch price per 1,000 / 1,000
material waste
= packaging material per pack x waste rate
(setup waste + running waste, as a share of net material)
cash operating cost per year
= (material + material waste) x good packs per year
+ labor + energy + maintenance
labor = operating hours x operators x loaded hourly rate
hours = good packs per year / effective good packs per hour
allocated equipment per year = installed cost / life in years
(separate line, straight-line, comparison only)
cost per 1,000 good packs
= (cash operating cost + allocated equipment) / good packs x 1,000
Report cash operating cost and the figure including allocated equipment as two lines. The allocation is a comparison assumption, not depreciation or accounting advice. For what belongs in the installed cost, see The True Installed Cost of Packaging Automation.
Worked example: steady volume
Illustrative numbers, not a quote, benchmark or customer result.
One product and one pack size, 1.5 million good packs per year, a small number of designs and long runs. Labor is $30 per hour loaded, with one operator on each machine. Energy is charged per running hour. Maintenance is treated as an annual amount.
| Input | Rollstock (VFFS) | Premade pouch |
|---|---|---|
| Material per 1,000 packs | $30 | $42 |
| Waste rate | 4% | 1.5% |
| Effective speed, good packs per minute | 50 | 40 |
| Operators | 1 | 1 |
| Energy per running hour | $6 | $5 |
| Maintenance per year | $4,500 | $3,500 |
| Installed equipment cost | $150,000 | $90,000 |
| Life for allocation | 10 years | 10 years |
The derived figures: rollstock runs 1,500,000 / (50 x 60) = 500 hours, and premade runs 1,500,000 / (40 x 60) = 625 hours.
| Line (per year) | Rollstock | Premade |
|---|---|---|
| Material (1,500 x $30 / 1,500 x $42) | $45,000 | $63,000 |
| Material waste (4% / 1.5%) | $1,800 | $945 |
| Labor (500 h / 625 h x $30) | $15,000 | $18,750 |
| Energy (500 h x $6 / 625 h x $5) | $3,000 | $3,125 |
| Maintenance | $4,500 | $3,500 |
| Cash operating cost | $69,300 | $89,320 |
| Allocated equipment ($150,000 / 10, $90,000 / 10) | $15,000 | $9,000 |
| Cash plus allocated equipment | $84,300 | $98,320 |
| Cash cost per 1,000 good packs | $46.20 | $59.55 |
| Total per 1,000 good packs | $56.20 | $65.55 |
Under these inputs rollstock costs $9.35 less per 1,000 packs, even after paying for the more expensive machine. The pouch price premium of $12 per 1,000 is the main driver, helped by the speed assumption. If your premade quote is closer to the film cost, or the premade machine runs as fast, the result moves.
Worked example: lower volume, many designs
Illustrative numbers, not a quote, benchmark or customer result.
Now 300,000 good packs per year, spread over many designs in short runs. Three things change. Each film changeover, with its web threading and print-register adjustment, wastes more material and time. Printed film is bought against minimum order quantities, which pushes the buyer toward ordering more film than the short runs use (see the next section). Pouches for short runs cost somewhat more per unit but change over faster. Equipment, labor rate, energy rates and maintenance are unchanged.
| Input | Rollstock (VFFS) | Premade pouch |
|---|---|---|
| Material per 1,000 packs | $34 | $44 |
| Waste rate | 10% | 3% |
| Effective speed, good packs per minute | 30 | 32 |
Hours: rollstock 300,000 / (30 x 60) = 166.67, premade 300,000 / (32 x 60) = 156.25.
| Line (per year) | Rollstock | Premade |
|---|---|---|
| Material (300 x $34 / 300 x $44) | $10,200 | $13,200 |
| Material waste (10% / 3%) | $1,020 | $396 |
| Labor (166.67 h / 156.25 h x $30) | $5,000 | $4,687.50 |
| Energy (166.67 h x $6 / 156.25 h x $5) | $1,000 | $781.25 |
| Maintenance | $4,500 | $3,500 |
| Cash operating cost | $21,720 | $22,564.75 |
| Allocated equipment | $15,000 | $9,000 |
| Cash plus allocated equipment | $36,720 | $31,564.75 |
| Cash cost per 1,000 good packs | $72.40 | $75.22 |
| Total per 1,000 good packs | $122.40 | $105.22 |
The ranking flips. Premade costs $17.18 less per 1,000 packs (122.40 - 105.22 = 17.18, using the unrounded $105.2158). Rollstock is still slightly cheaper on cash cost per 1,000 ($72.40 against $75.22), but its heavier equipment allocation is spread over only 300,000 packs. This is the same fixed-cost effect described in How Equipment Utilization Changes Automation Payback.
Where the break-even sits
The break-even volume is where the two annual totals are equal. Fixed costs here are allocated equipment plus maintenance. Variable cost is everything else per pack: material, waste, labor and energy.
break-even packs per year
= (annual fixed cost, rollstock - annual fixed cost, premade)
/ (variable cost per pack, premade - variable cost per pack, rollstock)
The fixed cost difference is the same in both scenarios: ($15,000 + $4,500) - ($9,000 + $3,500) = $19,500 - $12,500 = $7,000 per year.
With the steady-volume inputs, variable cost per 1,000 packs is $43.20 for rollstock ($31.20 material and waste, $10.00 labor, $2.00 energy) and $57.21 for premade ($42.63, $12.50, $2.08). The difference is $14.01 per 1,000, so break-even = $7,000 / $0.01401 per pack = about 499,500 packs per year. Above that volume, with these inputs, rollstock is cheaper.
With the short-run inputs, variable cost per 1,000 packs is $57.40 for rollstock ($37.40 material and waste, $16.67 labor, $3.33 energy) and $63.55 for premade ($45.32, $15.63, $2.60). The difference falls to $6.15 per 1,000, so break-even = $7,000 / $0.00615 per pack = about 1,138,000 packs per year.
The same pair of machines has two break-even points because waste, speed and material price depend on how the product is run. Break-even is a property of the operating profile, not of the machine alone.
Order structure and inventory
Price these factors for your own quotes. Do not assume figures.
- Minimum order quantity. Printed film and printed premade pouches both carry minimums, often set per design. A short run of many designs can force you to buy more than you will use before the artwork changes.
- Lead time. Longer lead times mean holding more safety stock of printed material. Ask each supplier for lead times at your order sizes.
- Cost of holding stock. Cash tied up, warehouse space, handling and damage risk. Rolls and pouch cartons take different space and handling.
- Obsolescence. If artwork, regulatory text or a promotion changes, leftover printed film or pouches may have to be written off or reworked. Multiply the expected leftover by its cost for each design.
- Number of SKUs. Each design adds a changeover, a stock position and an obsolescence risk. Some plants use plain film or pouches with labels or inkjet coding to cut the number of printed designs, which moves cost between lines instead of removing it.
These items often do not appear in a machine quote or a per-unit price. Add them to the model as extra material cost per 1,000 packs once you have estimates. For a fuller treatment of short runs, see Small Batches and Frequent Changeovers: The Hidden Cost of Packaging.
Non-price factors
Cost per good pack does not capture everything the market and the line require.
- Shelf appeal and features. If retailers or customers expect a zipper, a spout, a stand-up base or a particular shape, the format may be decided before cost enters.
- Seal integrity. Barrier needs, shelf life and leak requirements depend on the film structure and the seal type, and can differ between the two routes.
- Product characteristics. Powders, granules, liquids and sticky products behave differently when dropped into a forming tube compared with a pre-opened pouch. Dust in the seal area is one example.
- Floor space and operators. Machine footprint, film storage, and the skills your operators have for threading film or loading pouch magazines affect real speed.
The right technical fit has to be checked with equipment and material suppliers using real samples of your product and your film or pouch. A model can rank the two routes on cost, but it cannot say whether a pack seals or sells.
Checklist: data to collect
- Quotes for film and for finished pouches at your actual annual volume and the order sizes you would place, with minimums and lead times.
- Waste measured in trials on your product, split into setup waste and running waste.
- Speeds measured on your product with your film or pouch, including changeovers, not the nameplate speed.
- Number of designs and expected runs per year, and what happens to leftover printed material.
- Installed cost quotes for both machines with the same scope, plus an assumed life.
- Operators needed, the loaded labor rate, and energy and maintenance records or estimates.
Keep reading
- Small Batches and Frequent Changeovers: The Hidden Cost of Packaging: shows how run length and changeover time feed the waste and speed inputs used here.
- The True Installed Cost of Packaging Automation: lists what belongs in the installed equipment figure that you allocate in this comparison.
- Manual, Semi-Automatic or Fully Automatic Packaging? A Cost Model: applies the same break-even logic to the level of automation.
More cost models are collected under Production Economics.
Assumptions and limits
- All figures are illustrative. Your material prices, speeds, waste rates and labor costs will differ, and the ranking can change with them.
- Waste is a share of net material and is held constant within each scenario. Real waste varies by film, product and operator.
- The equipment allocation is a straight-line assumption for comparison. Financing, taxes, residual value, the time value of money and ramp-up are not included.
- Inventory carrying cost, minimum-order surplus and obsolescence are described but not priced in the worked tables.
- Labor and maintenance are simplified: one operator per machine and a flat annual maintenance amount.
- This is a comparison tool and does not replace financial, legal, safety, food-contact or engineering review.