Sheet metal fabrication costs can vary dramatically based on design choices that aren’t always obvious. With years of experience quoting complex enclosures, brackets, and chassis for aerospace, medical, and industrial clients, we’ve seen how small design adjustments can cut costs by 30-50% without compromising performance or quality.
Sheet metal fabrication typically costs $15-150 per part for prototypes, with production runs ranging from $5-75 per part depending on complexity, material, and volume. Simple laser-cut brackets start around $15-25, while complex welded assemblies with tight tolerances can exceed $100 per part. Material choice, bend complexity, and secondary operations drive most cost variation.
Discover which design features drive cost, how to optimize for volume, and what details fabricators need for accurate quoting and budget trade-offs.
Table of Contents
Why is my sheet metal quote higher than I expected?
Design choices that look simple in CAD often require expensive manufacturing workarounds, multiplying costs beyond your budget expectations. Features like sharp corners, tight clearances, and precise positioning can increase part costs from $45 to $75 per unit due to custom tooling requirements. Most quote surprises stem from design assumptions that don’t align with standard fabrication capabilities.
In our experience fabricating audio enclosures and medical housings, we’ve tracked how specific design decisions impact costs. A medical device housing requiring precision gasket grooves and tight seal tolerances drove costs from expected $65 to actual $187 per part. Sharp internal corners requiring custom tooling add 40-60% to part costs, while holes positioned within 5mm of bends require specialized punching sequences.
Design complexity particularly affects regulated industries. ISO 13485 compliance for medical surfaces requires burr-free machining and validated finishes, while AS9100 aerospace standards need material certifications that add 15-20% to smaller quantities. Following ISO 2768-m tolerancing guidelines helps minimize these additional processing requirements.
Quick Design Audit:
- Sharp corners (<2mm radius): +40-60% cost
- Tight clearances (<0.5mm): +50-100% cost
- Holes near bends (<5mm): +30-50% cost
- Custom features: +60-150% cost
Design Takeaway: Score your complexity before quoting. Designs with 3+ expensive features typically see 50-100% cost increases. Review aesthetic and functional choices against standard fabrication capabilities—sharp corners can use 3mm radius for same visual impact, tight gaps can accommodate 0.8mm clearances functionally.
Which design features are making my part more expensive?
Sharp corners, tight bend spacing, and custom holes create the biggest cost multipliers: sharp internal corners requiring custom tooling significantly increase setup costs, bends closer than 6mm force multiple operations (+30-50%), and non-standard hole shapes need specialized punches that add substantial per-feature costs. Standard tooling can’t create bend radii of 0.100″ – custom tooling could cost thousands of dollars and extend project lead time. Use this visual audit to identify expensive features hiding in your CAD model.
Our cost analysis across audio, medical, and aerospace parts reveals consistent feature-driven patterns. Sharp corners requiring custom press brake tooling consistently multiply setup costs versus standard 3mm radii. Custom-shaped cutouts demand specialized punching dies, while holes positioned closer than 3 times the material thickness plus bend radius to bend lines require complex punching sequences that add significant handling time.
Medical device housings demonstrate how design choices compound costs. A precision enclosure with multiple sharp corners, custom cutouts, and complex bend sequences can cost 3-4x more than the same functional design using standard geometry. Using 3mm corner radii, standard rectangular openings, and proper bend spacing typically achieves 60-70% cost reduction with identical performance.
Feature Cost Impact Calculator:
- Sharp corners (<2mm radius): Custom tooling required → Fix: Use 3mm radius (standard tooling)
- Tight bend spacing (<6mm): Multiple setups (+30-50% cost) → Fix: Space bends 10mm minimum
- Custom hole shapes: Specialized punches needed → Fix: Standard rectangles + mounting brackets
- Complex bend sequences: Manual positioning (+40-80% labor) → Fix: Single-setup forming design
Visual Design Audit Checklist:
- Count sharp internal corners in your 3D model (each = custom tooling cost)
- Measure spacing between bends (closer than 10mm = multiple setups)
- Identify non-rectangular holes (each = custom punch die)
- Check for overlapping bend zones (requires specialized fixtures)
Design Takeaway: Target manufacturing-friendly geometry first. Replace sharp corners with 3mm radii, use rectangular holes with separate hardware, space bends 10mm minimum, and design bend sequences for single-setup operations. These changes eliminate substantial tooling and setup costs while maintaining design intent.
How much can I save by adjusting tolerances or finishes?
Relaxing tolerances from ±0.01mm to ±0.1mm reduces precision costs 40-60%, while switching from polished to bead-blast finishes saves substantial costs on secondary operations. Surface finishes with exceptionally low Ra values require extensive light finishing cuts, surface grinding, and polishing that can double or triple part production costs. Most functional requirements work perfectly with looser specifications costing 50-70% less.
We’ve tracked specification impacts across medical, aerospace, and consumer electronics applications. A precision chassis saved 55% by applying ±0.02mm tolerances only to critical mounting surfaces, using ±0.1mm elsewhere—functionally identical assembly performance. Medical enclosures switching from custom mirror-polished surfaces (Ra 0.1-0.3 μm) to bead-blast finish (Ra 1.6 μm) maintained cleanliness requirements while cutting finishing costs significantly.
Different applications need appropriate precision levels. Consumer electronics rarely require tolerances tighter than ±0.1mm except for mating surfaces. ISO 2768-m tolerance standards provide appropriate accuracy for most non-critical dimensions while avoiding precision manufacturing overhead that can double part costs. Ra 1.6-3.2 μm finishes work for most applications without premium processing.
Tolerance & Finish Decision Guide:
- Enclosure gaps: ±0.2mm achieves good fit (±0.05mm increases costs 40-60%)
- Mounting holes: ±0.1mm sufficient (±0.02mm adds precision overhead)
- Surface finishes: Ra 1.6 μm achieves most requirements (Ra 0.4 μm adds substantial polishing costs)
- Flatness specs: 0.2mm adequate for assemblies (0.05mm requires precision operations)
Smart Specification Strategy:
- Start with ISO 2768-m general tolerances (covers 80% of requirements)
- Tighten only dimensions affecting function (assembly interfaces, load-bearing surfaces)
- Use Ra 1.6-3.2 μm unless customer-facing (avoids premium finishing operations)
- Specify “break sharp edges” vs. precise chamfers (achieves safety without precision costs)
Design Takeaway: Apply tolerance hierarchy—use general tolerances first, then specify precision only where functionally required. Reserve premium finishes for visible surfaces only. This approach maintains product performance while eliminating 40-70% of unnecessary specification costs through strategic callout decisions.
What's adding setup time and cost to my sheet metal part?
Each additional manufacturing operation (cutting → bending → welding → finishing) adds 25-80% to part costs due to separate machine setups, tool changes, and quality verification requirements. Parts with standard bend radii average 8-12 minutes setup time, while complex parts requiring custom tooling need 25-35 minutes due to careful calibration and quality verification. Count operations in your design to predict setup-driven cost increases.
Our operation tracking reveals consistent cost patterns. Single-operation laser cutting establishes baseline costs, while each additional process multiplies complexity. Adding press brake bending increases costs 25-40%, welding operations require specialized fixtures adding another 40-80%, and secondary finishing can double total manufacturing time. Custom tooling becomes necessary for non-standard bending angles, adding significant upfront costs.
Medical enclosures requiring precision welding and burr-free finishing typically need 4-5 separate operations, while consumer brackets optimized for manufacturing achieve identical function through single-operation forming. Following ISO 2768-m standards helps minimize precision operations that extend manufacturing requirements.
Operation Complexity Scorecard:
- Laser cutting only: Baseline cost (score: 1)
- Adding bending: +fixture setup (score: +2)
- Adding welding: +specialized fixtures (score: +3)
- Adding finishing: +material handling (score: +2)
When Complex Operations Are Worth It:
- Assembly time savings through part consolidation
- Performance requirements demanding welded joints
- Regulatory compliance for contamination control
Design Takeaway: Count operations before finalizing geometry—target 1-2 maximum for cost efficiency. Replace multi-operation assemblies with single-operation formed features and design for standard tooling to minimize setup complexity by 50-80%.
How does quantity affect my sheet metal quote?
Sheet metal part costs drop 60-80% from single prototypes to production quantities as setup costs spread across more parts. A zinc-plated steel part costs about $29 when ordering just one, but drops to $3 per part when ordering ten due to fixed cost distribution. Higher quantities justify expensive tooling and process optimization that dramatically reduce per-part pricing.
We’ve tracked volume economics across medical, aerospace, and consumer product development. Tooling-intensive parts show dramatic volume savings—precision housings requiring specialized forming dies cost significantly more for single prototypes but achieve substantial per-part reductions at higher volumes as tooling investment distributes. Different batch sizes necessitate different manufacturing processes—laser cutting preferred for dozens of parts, while larger quantities benefit from cost-efficient die stamping.
Volume thresholds create distinct manufacturing approaches. Rapid tooling becomes cost-effective for orders of 100-2,000 units compared to other manufacturing techniques, though this varies by part complexity and tooling requirements.
Development Volume Strategy:
- Concept validation (1-3 pieces): Accept premium pricing for design verification
- Functional testing (10-25 pieces): Fixed cost amortization begins, 30-50% reduction
- Manufacturing validation (50-100 pieces): Production efficiency achieved, 60-80% savings
- Market launch (500+ pieces): Process optimization opportunities, additional 20-40% reduction
Volume Decision Guidelines:
- Simple parts: Volume benefits modest, order conservatively
- Complex tooling: Higher volumes needed to justify investment
- Balance inventory costs against per-part savings
Design Takeaway: Align volume planning with development milestones. Budget realistically for prototype premiums, then leverage volume economics for production efficiency while considering inventory costs and obsolescence risk.
What details do I need to include to get an accurate quote fast?
Provide material type, thickness, quantity, tolerance requirements, and finish specifications to get accurate quotes within 24-48 hours instead of waiting weeks for clarification requests. Incomplete specifications force fabricators to add safety margins that inflate pricing by 20-50%, while missing details trigger time-consuming back-and-forth communication that delays project timelines. Clear documentation eliminates guesswork and enables competitive pricing.
Our quoting analysis across thousands of requests shows consistent patterns. Complete specifications with material callouts, dimensional tolerances, and finish requirements generate quotes within 1-2 business days. Incomplete requests typically require 3-5 clarification cycles, extending quote turnaround to 1-2 weeks while fabricators make conservative assumptions that increase pricing. Sheet metal design services typically cost around $125 per hour, making clear initial specifications critical for avoiding redesign costs.
Different project types need specific information priorities. Medical devices require material certifications and surface finish specifications, aerospace components need traceability documentation, while consumer products focus on appearance and cost optimization. Following ISO 2768-m tolerance standards provides appropriate baseline accuracy without over-specification.
Essential Quote Information Checklist:
- Material specification: Grade, thickness, finish condition (6061-T6, 0.125″, mill finish)
- Quantity requirements: Prototype count, production volumes, delivery timeline
- Tolerance callouts: Critical dimensions only, reference ISO 2768-m for general
- Surface finish: Ra requirements, coating specifications, appearance standards
- File format: STEP files preferred, DXF acceptable with bend notes
Quote Acceleration Tips:
- Include assembly context photos for complex parts
- Specify inspection requirements upfront
- Provide delivery address for shipping calculations
Design Takeaway: Create comprehensive specification packages before requesting quotes. Include material grades, critical tolerances, finish requirements, and production quantities to enable accurate pricing within 24-48 hours while avoiding costly assumption-based estimates.
What common design mistakes drive up fabrication cost?
Sharp internal corners, holes too close to bends, and over-specified tolerances are the top cost-driving mistakes, each adding 25-100% to part costs through custom tooling requirements and specialized processes. Standard tooling can’t create bend radii of 0.100″ – custom tooling could cost thousands of dollars and extend project lead time. Most expensive design mistakes stem from CAD software defaults that don’t reflect manufacturing realities.
Our cost analysis across thousands of parts reveals consistent mistake patterns. Sharp corners requiring custom press brake tooling consistently multiply costs versus standard 3mm radii. Holes positioned closer than 3 times the material thickness plus bend radius to bend lines require complex punching sequences, while over-specified tolerances force precision processes where standard accuracy suffices. SolidWorks bend radius defaults of 0.100″ represent the most common costly mistake.
Design mistakes particularly affect prototype and low-volume production where custom tooling costs can’t amortize across large quantities. A medical housing with multiple design errors might cost $180+ per part versus $45-65 for the same function using manufacturing-friendly geometry. Following ISO 2768-m standards helps avoid unnecessary precision requirements.
Top Cost-Driving Mistakes:
- Sharp corners (<2mm radius): Forces custom tooling, use 3mm minimum
- Holes near bends (<5mm spacing): Requires specialized punching, space 10mm minimum
- Tight tolerances everywhere: Use ±0.1mm general, ±0.02mm only where critical
- Complex bend sequences: Design for single-setup operations when possible
- Custom hole shapes: Use standard rectangles with separate mounting hardware
Prevention Strategies:
- Change CAD defaults to manufacturing-friendly values
- Apply tolerances selectively to functional surfaces only
- Design bend sequences for standard tooling access
Design Takeaway: Review designs for manufacturing-hostile features before finalizing. Replace sharp corners with 3mm radii, space holes 10mm from bends, and apply tight tolerances only where functionally required to eliminate 50-80% of unnecessary cost drivers.
Conclusion
Sheet metal fabrication costs depend primarily on design choices rather than material expenses. Smart tolerance selection, manufacturing-friendly geometry, and strategic quantity planning can reduce costs 40-70% while maintaining functionality. Most quote surprises stem from design assumptions that force expensive custom processes and specialized tooling requirements.
Contact us to explore manufacturing solutions tailored to your sheet metal fabrication requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, but include material type, approximate size, quantity, and key requirements. Fabricators can provide ballpark estimates from sketches or early CAD models. However, final quotes require complete specifications including tolerances and finishes to avoid 20-50% pricing surprises later.
If quotes exceed budget by 50%+ and you need ongoing production, redesign pays off quickly. Most parts achieve 40-70% cost reduction through manufacturing-friendly changes like standard bend radii, simplified hole patterns, and operation consolidation—often without compromising function or appearance.
If you’re specifying ±0.01mm everywhere, you’re over-tolerancing. ISO 2768-m tolerance standards provide appropriate accuracy for most non-critical dimensions. Only apply tight tolerances to mating surfaces, mounting holes, or features affecting assembly—everything else can use ±0.1mm general tolerances at 50% lower cost.
Order your 5 prototypes immediately for design validation, then place the larger order after testing. Single prototypes cost about $29 per part but drop to $3 per part when ordering ten due to setup cost amortization. Waiting delays your development timeline, and prototype feedback often reveals design changes needed anyway.
“Simple” appearance often hides manufacturing complexity. Multiple bends requiring separate setups, welding operations needing fixtures, or custom hole patterns demanding specialized punches drive costs up dramatically. Count your operations—each additional process typically adds 25-80% to part costs.
Your design likely contains hidden complexity forcing expensive custom processes. Standard tooling can’t create bend radii of 0.100″ – custom tooling could cost thousands of dollars and extend project lead time. Check for sharp internal corners, holes near bends, or tight tolerances throughout—these typically multiply costs 2-4x over manufacturing-friendly alternatives.
