TABLE TOP LABEL PRINTERS

Transcription

1 WHIT TE PAP PER TABLE TOP LABEL PRINTERS Compa aring Devices Tota al Cost of Ownership JUNE 2017 Keypoint Intelligence is a brand built upon two great companies, Buyers Lab and InfoTrends. The powerful combination of BLI s independent testing and product knowledge with InfoTrends market research and consulting expertise allows the merged entity to deliver more value to the global customers we serve.

2 contents Document Introduction...2 Tabletop Label Printers Evaluated...2 Methodology...3 TCO Results...4 Epson TM Opinion...8 Tables Table 1: Tabletop Inkjet Devices Evaluated...2 Table 2: Pricing Research Results Figures Figure 1: Test Labels for Ink Consumption...4 Figure 2: Vegetablee Label TCO Results for Western Europe...5 Figure 3: Energy Label TCO Results for Western Europe...5 Figure 4: Vegetablee Label TCO Results for the United States Figure 5: Energy Label TCO Results for the United States...6 P1 Keypoint Intelligence

3 Introduction Tabletop color digital label printers are becoming increasingly popular among small and medium-sized manufacturers and other business end users, including some small print servicee providers. With these small, normally decentralized devices, quality labels are available instantly without the storage and wastage that comes with ordering pre-printed labels. As the market demand for tabletop color digital label printers has grown, several new products have come into the market in recent years, and more will come over time. As with most types of printers, operating costs for tabletop color digital label printers make up the majority of the total cost of ownership for a given model. That total cost of ownership is a good way to compare different models, which can vary greatly in terms of initial purchase price. Keypoint Intelligence, a special supplier of testing services for the printing industry, brought three top models intoo its laboratory for evaluation in terms of total costs of ownership (TCO). Thanks to that testingg and additional pricing research we can generate a TCO estimate for each. In this White Paper, we provide a summary of the devices we tested and our TCO estimates for up to1,000,000 labels. Tabletop Label Printers Evaluated Keypoint Intelligence tested the Epson TM-, Quick Label System, and Trojan Label. As seen in Table 1, these devices have differences due mainly to the manufacturers different inkjet print technologies. Table 1: Tabletop Inkjet Devices Evaluated TM- Kiaro!! D Vendor Epson Quick Label Systems Trojan Label 1 Year Introduced Technology Epson PrecisionCore TFP Canon Bubble Jet Memjet Waterfall Resolution 1200 x 600 dpi 1200 x 1200 dpi 1600 x 1600 dpi Label Width 50mm-112mm 26mm-109 mm 51mm-241mmm Max Print Speed 300mm/second 150mm/second 305mm/second Ink Type Pigment Pigment Dye 1 TrojanLabel was acquired in February 2017 by the Quick Label Systems parent company, AstroNova P2 Keypoint Intelligence

4 Methodology Keypoint Intelligence gathered printer, ink, and consumable parts pricing informationn from manufacturers and resellers in the U.S. and Western Europe. Table 2 lists the average prices for these items in U.S. Dollars and Euros. Each item is figured into our total cost calculations included later in this White Paper. 2 Table 2: Pricing Research Results 3 TCO Items (US) (Europe) (US) (Europe) (US) (Europe) Printer 4 $8, , $7,, , $9, , Usable Ink Cost per ml Print Heads Service Station/Other Waste Container $ $ $ Permanent Permanent $ $2,500 (Full Set) 2, $ N/A N/A $1,, , $ $ $ $ $ All the printers were tested in Keypoint Intelligence s U.K. laboratory, in an environment monitored by two Temp/RH chart recorders, which ensures that typical office conditions are being maintained. All products lab-tested by Keypoint Intelligence are powered by dedicated circuits that are protected by ESP (Electronic Systems Protection, Inc.) surge protectors to prevent transient power and communication disturbances from affecting equipment under testing. To test ink consumption, technicians printed a total of 6,4000 labels on each device. 3, 200 labels were printed using the vegetable image, and 3,2000 were printed using the energy image seen below in Figure 1. 2 Media costs are not included in this analysis. 3 Prices do not include taxes or discounts. 4 Device acquisition costs (no optional add-ons) P3 Keypoint Intelligence

5 Figure 1: Test Labels for Ink Consumption The 3,200 labels were subdivided into two 1,600 label print runs: one print run was printed in each device s reduced speed, and the other was printed in each device s standard speed. All the ink cartridges in each device were weighed at the start and end of the test, and at the start and end of each print run. All recorded weights were utilized to calculate the ink used from each cartridge to print the 3,200 vegetable labels and the the 3,2000 energy labels. 5 TCO Results In both our Western Europe and US analysis, the Epson proved to have the lowest cost of ownership while printing both vegetable and energy labels. Figures 2 through 5 show the TCO results for each label type in both Western Europe and the US. 5 A specific gravity of 1 was used to convert grams of ink to ml of ink. Manufacturers and resellers provided information regarding the life of consumable parts and this was not independently validated by laboratory testing. P4 Keypoint Intelligence

6 Figure 2: Vegetable Label TCO Results for Western Europe 100,000 99,599 80,970 18% Lower TCO with Epson vs at 1,000,000 vegetable labels. 75,000 50,000 25, ,081 17,139 14, ,000 27,663 23,274 43,711 38,187 31, ,000 62, ,000 48,711 40,143 59,235 48, ,0000 1,000,000 Number of Label Prints (152 x102 mm) Our analysis indicates that the has a TCO advantage over the that ranges from 13% at 200,000 vegetable labels to 18% at 1 million vegetable labels. When compared to the, the Epson offers total savings ranging from 41% at 200,000 vegetable labels to 51% at 1 million vegetablee labels. Figure 3: Energy Label TCO Results for Western Europe 75, , , , ,989 10,859 25,339 22,738 17,364 15,312 19,765 34,783 28,113 24,218 44,227 33,487 28,671 53, , , , ,0000 1,000,000 Number of Label Prints (152 x102 mm) Figure 3 illustrates that the Epson also has a lower TCO when printing the energy label. Nevertheless, the lower amount of ink equired to print the energy label reduced the percentage of savings seen with the Epson device. The costs are only 9% higher at 200,,000 energy labels and 14% higher at 1 million energy labels. The TCO for the is 32% higher at 200,,000 energy labels the and 47% higher at 1 million energy labels than the. P5 Keypoint Intelligence

7 Figure 4: Vegetable Label TCO Results for the United States $150, % Lower TCO with Epson vs at 1,000,000 vegetablee labels. $125,0000 $100,0000 $75,0000 $50,0000 $25,0000 $22,728 $19,211 $79,483 $60,910 $57,427 $35,371 $48,183 $51,346 $35,455 $40,634 $29,922 $101,538 $62,057 $73,638 $123,594 $0 200, , , ,000 1,000,0000 Number of Label Prints (152 x102 mm) The US results are only slightly different from those in Western Europe. The offers a lower TCO than the, with savings off 16% at both 200,000 vegetable labels and 1 million vegetable labels. The TCO advantage for the over the increases from 46% at 200,0000 vegetable labels to 50% at 1 million vegetable labels. Figure 5: Energy Label TCO Results for the United States $75,000 $66,498 $55,336 $50,000 $25,000 $16,494 $14,154 $21,850 $19,809 $22,989 $33,012 $44,174 $35,977 $29,483 $31,119 $25,464 $36,774 $42,472 $0 200, , , ,000 1,000,000 Number of Label Prints (152 x102 mm) As in our European TCO results, the energy label s lower ink coverage leads to a much lower TCO for all the tabletop label printers included in the analysis. The also had a lower TCO with the energy label. This advantage ranges from 14% at 200,000 energy labels to 13% at 1 million energy labels. When compared to the, the TCO savings range from 35% at 200,000 energy labels to 45% at 1 million energy labels. Epson TM- As seen in our TCO charts, the provedd to have overall a lower total cost of ownership than both the and. While the suggested retail price for the printer was comparable to the other devices, the operating costs proved to be significantly less. These lower costs were drivenn by two factors. First, the print heads P6 Keypoint Intelligence

8 last the life of the device (according to Epson,, roughly 3.3 million labels). Second, the ink cartridges are both larger and cheaper than the and cartridges. Kiaro! D The has a competitive purchase price, but its TCO rises rapidly with usage. The has a 51% higher TCO than both the Epson at 1 million vegetable labels and 41% higher than the Trojan Label device at 1 millionn vegetable labels. These were driven by higher ink costs and expensive print heads. Thee greater ink costs come from the larger amount of ink usage per label, smaller ink cartridges, and higher ink cartridge costs. The print head is rated to print 50km of label stock or more; however, it can cost $2,500 to replace. The TCO for the falls between the and the in terms of TCO. The devicee is very efficient with its ink during printing and in the self-cleaning cycle, but these benefits are in part offset by ink cartridges that are smaller and cost more than cartridges. Our analysis showed s ink costs are just slightly more than the when printing the vegetable label and are slightly less when printing the energy label. Still, overall running costs for the increase because the Memjet print head life is comparatively short. In fact, the replacement print heads make up 12% of the s TCO. P7 Keypoint Intelligence

9 opinion i Opinion Total cost of ownership should be among the essential criteria when deciding on the purchase of a tabletop color digital label printer. In fact, our analysis indicates that the cost of consumables may exceed the cost of the printer ass early as 58,000 vegetable labels. As printer usage increases, TCO becomes even more important. We show in our analysis that the total consumables cost of printing 1 million vegetable labels can range from 4-15 times higher than the cost of the actual printer. In the US and Western Europe, the Epson offers the best TCO among the label printers we evaluated for our study. The market around tabletop color digital label printers is dynamic and vendors are working to furtherr improve these devices. We expect continued innovation to bring further enhancements in the technology and possibly different cost structures in the future. P8 Keypoint Intelligence

10 authors Bob Leahey Associate Director Robert Leahey has many years of experience in consulting to the peripherals and supplies industries. At InfoTrends, his main work has been to conduct custom research projects, most often on inkjet, thermal, and color laser technologies used for commercial and industrial applications. He is also the main analyst of InfoTrends Color Digital Label and Package (CDLP) continuous information service. Brendan Morse is a Consultant for InfoTrends Consulting Group. Mr. Morse is responsible for managingg and producing custom research for technologyy vendors, their channels, and end customers. Prior to joining the Consulting Group, he was a Senior Research Analyst for InfoTrends Managed Services and Document Software Solutions advisory areas. Brendan Morse Consultant Comments or Questions? This material is prepared specifically for clients of InfoTrends, Inc. The opinions expressed represent our interpretation and analysiss of information generally available to the public or released by responsible individuals in the subject companies. We believe that the sources of information on which our material is based are reliable andd we have applied our best professional judgment to the data obtained. P9 Keypoint Intelligence