I manage procurement for a 280-person packaging plant. We run 14 coding lines, and the annual budget for coding hardware, consumables, and maintenance is around $350,000. Last year I had to replace three aging CIJ printers. Over a 3-month period, I compared Videojet 1650 printers, Videojet 1710 printers, and three laser options: a CO2 laser, a fiber laser, and an IC laser marking machine from a smaller vendor. This article is the comparison I wish I'd had before starting.
Top-line answer: there is no permanently correct winner. The right choice depends on line speed, substrate mix, and how much labor you can afford. But the framework below will get you to a defensible decision.
The comparison framework: TCO, not sticker price
I broke every quote into four buckets:
- Capital cost and installation
- Consumables (ink, make-up, gases, spare parts)
- Labor and unplanned downtime
- Substrate flexibility
If you only compare bucket one, every CIJ printer beats every laser system. That's why so many buyers default to inkjet. But in our plant, bucket three was the biggest cost—and it almost never appears on the vendor's first quote.
Dimension 1: Upfront capital cost
Videojet 1650 printers sit in the middle of the CIJ range. The 1650 is a solid general-purpose machine for bar codes, dates, and line identifiers at moderate line speeds. Videojet 1710 printers carry a clear price premium because they're built for faster lines, more code content, and better remote monitoring.
Laser systems are in a different bracket. A ventilated CO2 laser for cardboard or film can start around 1.5x to 2x the cost of a CIJ system. A fiber laser for metal or high-contrast plastic can reach 2.5x to 3x. The IC laser marking machine we evaluated sat between the two—it used integrated controls and a compact source, which lowered installation cost despite the higher equipment price.
Verdict: CIJ wins on purchase price, with the 1650 cheaper than the 1710. But if you're running three shifts, a laser can catch up within 24–30 months just by removing consumables from your budget.
Dimension 2: Consumables: ink and make-up vs "nothing"
Here's where the intuitive math gets tricky. I pulled every order for Videojet 1650 and 1710 consumables over the prior 24 months. For our line mix, CIJ ink and make-up alone were costing between $12,000 and $18,000 per printer per year. That's not including printhead cleaning cartridges, filters, or the occasional replacement pump.
Laser systems have no ink and no make-up. A CO2 laser will eventually need a laser tube or service kit on a schedule that depends on hours of use. A fiber laser has essentially zero running consumables beyond beam delivery optics, which can be cleaned. The IC laser marking machine had no consumables at all, though it did require a clean supply of compressed air to keep dust off the optics.
This sounds like a slam dunk for laser. But here's the surprise from our tracking: consumables were not the largest line item in the TCO. Labor was. Every CIJ printer needs daily start-up and shutdown—cleaning the nozzle, checking the gutter, topping off solvent. Even with the 1710's better self-cleaning routine, an operator still has to touch it.
Verdict: Laser wins the consumables category by a mile. But if you only count ink and make-up, you're underestimating the real cost of CIJ by a factor of two or more.
Dimension 3: Downtime, labor, and line utilization
I used actual production logs for this. Across our 14 CIJ machines, we lost an average of 31 minutes per machine per shift to routine cleaning, nozzle clogs, and viscosity adjustments. Let's put that in dollars: 31 minutes x 2 shifts x 14 machines x $38/hour loaded labor equals about $1,100 per day—or more than $260,000 per year. That number shocked me when I built the spreadsheet.
Laser systems, by contrast, don't clog. A fiber laser or an IC laser marking machine can run for hours without an operator paying attention. The CO2 laser had one process issue: after a run of dusty cartons, the beam delivery optics needed cleaning in the middle of a night shift, and we didn't catch it until we had 90 minutes of unmarked product. That's a process failure, not an equipment failure, but it matters. Lasers shift the burden from daily maintenance to scheduled checks.
Between the two CIJ models, the 1710 earns its premium mainly through lower unplanned downtime. The 1710's auto-flush and remote diagnostic features caught two nozzle issues before they became line stops in the first three months. The 1650 is more reliable in the simple sense—fewer software options, less to confuse the operator—but it doesn't give you the same early warning.
Verdict: If your line runs more than one shift, the 1710's premium can pay back in a year. If you run one shift with lots of product changes, the 1650 may be the smarter purchase because you're not paying for speed you can't use.
Dimension 4: Substrate flexibility and the right technology
This is where CIJ and lasers are not interchangeable. A Videojet 1650 or 1710 can print on many non-absorbent surfaces: glass, metal, plastic, cable, even damp cartons. That flexibility is valuable if your line runs vastly different packages.
Lasers are material-dependent. CO2 lasers handle cardboard, wood, paperboard, and many plastics. Fiber lasers are better on metal and dark-molded plastics. Because we already use laser fiber cutting for metal components in the fabrication bay, adding a fiber laser marker meant our maintenance staff only needed to learn one laser source family. The IC laser marking machine we evaluated was ideal for small plastic housings where a CIJ jet could smear or where a CO2 laser produced too much heat.
One note about terminology: when people search for "laser facial CO2", they're usually thinking of a cosmetic device. The packaging CO2 laser is a different class altogether—higher power, industrial enclosure, safety interlocks. If you're asking whether that type of laser can mark your cartons, yes, but don't expect the same footprint or price as a clinic-grade device.
Verdict: CIJ is the generalist. Lasers are specialists. If you have a stable product mix and a high-volume substrate, a specialist laser will beat CIJ on cost. If you change substrates weekly, CIJ is hard to beat.
What I decided (and why it might not apply to you)
After comparing 12 quotes over 3 months, we standardized on:
- Videojet 1710 for our two high-speed beverage lines. The speed capability and remote diagnostics made the higher initial cost worth it.
- Videojet 1650 for slower lines with frequent product changes. The lower capital cost and simpler operation fit those lines better.
- A CO2 laser for one high-volume corrugated line. It cut ongoing ink costs and removed a nozzle-clog issue that was giving us line stops.
We did not buy a fiber laser or an IC laser marking machine in the end. For our metal and plastic housing work, the volume wasn't high enough to justify the extra capital. That said, if I ran a 3-shift operation with stable metal parts and already had laser fiber cutting in-house, the fiber laser would be the first tool I'd spec.
Honestly, I started this exercise expecting to buy more CIJ machines. The data pushed me in a different direction on the corrugated line. This worked for us, but it's specific to our line speeds, product mix, and staff. My experience is based on tracking about $1.8M in coding spend over the past 6 years. If you're a small shop with one line and a seasonal product, the calculus is different—a single laser's service contract might exceed your total CIJ consumables.
The best advice I can give: build a TCO model with your own labor cost, shift pattern, and substrate mix. Ask every vendor for a line-integration quote that includes installation, exhaust, training, and 3 years of consumables or service kits. (The first quote rarely includes all of that—surprise, surprise.)
If you're choosing between Videojet 1650 printers and Videojet 1710 printers, start with line speed and available labor. If you're choosing between CIJ and laser, start with substrate stability and run volume. And if a vendor tells you either technology is universally cheaper, ask them to put the TCO assumptions in writing. In my experience, that request quickly separates the consultants from the sales reps.
All quotes referenced here were received in Q4 2024. As of January 2025, that's our planning baseline; get current numbers before you sign.
