Comparing Two Paths: Videojet 1880 vs. a CO2 Laser System
If you've ever had to choose between an industrial inkjet printer and a laser marking system, you know the feeling. You're not just comparing two machines. You're comparing two entirely different strategies for your production line.
In our case, the decision came down to the Videojet 1880 (a continuous inkjet printer) versus a CO2 laser system (like the Gramercy or a similar unit). On paper, the laser looked like the future. No consumables, right? But after auditing our 2023 spending and tracking every invoice for the past six years, I found a different story.
Here's a breakdown of the key dimensions we compared, based on $180,000 in cumulative spending and about 150 orders across different vendors.
1. Upfront Cost: The Laser's Heavy Lift
Videojet 1880: Our quoted price for a new Videojet 1880 was around $4,500 to $5,200 (depending on the configuration and service package).
CO2 Laser (e.g., Gramercy): A comparable CO2 laser system was quoted at $12,000 to $15,000. That's more than double the upfront investment. The initial sticker shock was real.
Conclusion here is straightforward: If you're looking at the first year's budget, the Videojet 1880 wins. You can get three of them for the price of one laser. But that's not the whole story.
2. Running Costs: The Ink vs. No-Ink Myth
Conventional wisdom says laser is cheaper because there are no inks or solvents. My experience with both technologies suggests otherwise. It's not that simple.
Videojet 1880: We budget about $300–$400 per year for ink, make-up, and cleaning solution. For a single machine running a moderate volume (say 10,000 codes per day), that's about $0.08 per day in consumables. We also budget for a printhead rebuild every 18–24 months (about $600).
CO2 Laser: True, no ink. But the tube and power supply are consumables. A typical CO2 tube lasts 10,000–20,000 hours. Replacement costs about $2,000–$3,000. For a three-shift operation, you might need a new tube every 1.5 years. The cooling system (chiller) also needs maintenance. And the optics—mirrors and lenses—will degrade and need cleaning or replacement.
The unexpected finding: Over a 5-year period, the CO2 laser's total consumable cost was roughly 15% higher than the Videojet 1880's (surprise, surprise). The laser's consumables are just less frequent, but they're much more expensive when they hit. The cost per code was actually lower for the inkjet in our specific production environment.
3. Operational Impact: Downtime and Speed
This is where the decision got muddy. We initially went with the Videojet 1880 because of the lower upfront cost. But we kept running into issues with code readability on certain recycled cardboard surfaces. The laser was always crisp. That led to a second decision.
Videojet 1880: It's a workhorse. Fast, reliable for most substrates. But on high-speed lines (over 300 feet per minute), the print quality can degrade slightly. We also had to clean the printhead every morning (takes about 5 minutes).
CO2 Laser: Slower to set up initially. You need to adjust focal length and power settings for every new material. But once dialed in, it's incredibly fast and consistent. No daily cleaning. The big catch: if the laser tube fails, you're down for 2–3 days waiting for a replacement. That's lost production.
Here's what I learned: The laser gave us better code quality, but the Videojet gave us better uptime. The 'reliability' trade-off is real.
4. Flexibility: The Laser's Niche, The Inkjet's Breadth
We run a mix of products: plastic bottles, cardboard boxes, aluminum cans, and paper sleeves. The Videojet 1880 could handle all of them with the right ink. The laser struggled with reflective surfaces (aluminum) and some dark plastics.
The Videojet 1880's advantage: It's a one-solution-for-everything machine. We used the same printer for 80% of our codes. We only needed the laser for the tough, high-contrast codes on recycled cardboard.
The laser's advantage: If you're only coding one material (like cardboard or clear film), the laser is superior. But if you have a multi-material line, the inkjet is more versatile.
So, Which One Should You Choose?
After comparing 8 vendors over 3 months using our TCO spreadsheet, we ended up with a hybrid solution. We kept the Videojet 1880 for the majority of our line and bought a single CO2 laser for the high-speed cardboard line where legibility was critical.
Choose the Videojet 1880 if:
- You have a multi-product line with different materials.
- Upfront budget is limited.
- You need maximum uptime and can tolerate daily cleaning.
- You're coding at moderate speeds (under 300 fpm).
Choose a CO2 Laser if:
- You code a single, consistent material (especially cardboard or film).
- Code permanence and quality are your absolute priority.
- You can stomach the higher upfront cost and less frequent, but larger, maintenance bills.
- You have a dedicated technician for setup changes.
My final advice: Don't let the 'no consumables' promise sell you on a laser. It's not a free ride. Calculate your total cost per code based on your specific volume, materials, and labor time. (And don't forget the cost of downtime when the laser tube goes.) The Videojet 1880 is a safer bet for most mixed-production environments. But if you're a high-volume, single-material operation, the laser can be worth the premium.
