WHITE PAPER PORTABLE LABEL PRINTERS. Comparing Devices TCO

Transcription

1 PORTABLE LABEL PRINTERS Comparing Devices TCO APRIL 2018

2 Document Introduction...2 Scope of Testing and Research...2 Laboratory Testing and Cartridge Results...3 Laboratory Testing Methods...3 Cartridge Results...5 Pricing Research...7 Pricing Research Methodology...7 Pricing Research Results...8 TCO Analysis...10 Standard Tape TCO...10 Self-laminating Tape TCO...12 Heat Shrink Tube TCO...13 Opinion...14 Tables Table 1: Standard Tape Cartridge s...6 Table 2: Self-laminating Cartridge s...6 Table 3: Heat Shrink Tube Cartridge s...7 Table 4: Printer and Standard Tape Per Label Costs...8 Table 5: Printer and Self-laminating Per Label Costs...9 Table 6: Printer and Per Label Heat Shrink Tube Costs...10 Table 7: Epson Equivalent Portable Label Printers Names by Regions...15 Figures Figure 1: Portable Industrial Label Printers Tested...3 Figure 2: Visual Comparison of Label Output...3 Figure 3: Test One Labels...4 Figure 4: Test Two Labels...4 Figure 5: Test Three Labels...4 Figure 6: Continuous and Die-cut Label Dimensions...5 Figure 7: Standard Tape Euro TCO Results...11 Figure 8: Standard Tape U.S. Dollar TCO Results...11 Figure 9: Self-laminating Tape Euro TCO Results...12 Figure 10: Self-laminating Tape U.S. Dollar TCO Results...12 Figure 11: Heat Shrink Tube Euro TCO Results...13 Figure 12: Heat Shrink Tube U.S. Dollar TCO Results...14 P1 Keypoint Intelligence

3 Introduction Portable industrial label printers have become vital tools in the telecommunication/data, manufacturing, construction, transportation and warehousing industries plus several other fields. These small, rugged devices allow companies to address the labeling needs of their increasingly disbursed and mobile employees. Having the right label at your employees fingertips anytime and anywhere can save organizations a considerable amount of time and money. As demand for portable label printers has grown, the ease of use and availability of these devices has increased. With a multitude of printers to choose from, professionals must assess which printer is the best value for their organizations. This can be very challenging. At the core of this challenge is the lack of clarity about how much a particular printer will cost to own and operate over time, which is referred to as total cost of ownership (TCO). Keypoint Intelligence, a specialty supplier of testing and information services for the industry, conducted comparative cartridge yield tests in its UK laboratory. The goal of this testing and research is to help potential users of portable label printers understand what they could expect to spend on printers, various cartridges, cost per label, and potential TCO prices. Scope of Testing and Research Keypoint Intelligence tested devices from each of the major vendors Brady, Brother, Epson, and Dymo who make devices for the portable industrial label printer market. Keypoint Intelligence tested a total of 10 different label printers from the four brands: BMP41 and BMP51 from Brady, the PT-D600, PT-P700, and PT-E550W from Brother, the XTL300 from Dymo, and the LW-600P (LW-PX400 in the U.S.), LW-Z700 (LW-PX700 in the U.S.), LW- Z900 (LW-PX900 in the U.S.), and LW-PX750 from Epson. Figure 1 includes photos taken when each of the devices was first turned on in the laboratory. P2 Keypoint Intelligence

4 Figure 1: Portable Industrial Label Printers Tested BMP41 BMP51 PT-P700 PT-D600 PT-E550W LW-600P LW-PX400 (U.S.) LW-PX750 (U.S.) LW-Z700 LW-Z900 LW-PX700 (U.S.) LW-PX900 (U.S.) XTL300 Laboratory Testing and Cartridge Results Laboratory Testing Methods Keypoint Intelligence purchased all the label printers and had them shipped to its UK laboratory. There is no industry standard when it comes to font size, character spacing, lead margins, right margins, and total length for portable label printers. As seen in Figure 2 below, there is considerable variation in the output for each label printer. Figure 2: Visual Comparison of Label Output P3 Keypoint Intelligence

5 Laboratory technicians were able to manage these variations, however, by simulating a real-world usage pattern and by selecting the minimum margins available for each portable printer model. Each label printer was then subjected to three tests performed on three label media types: standard tape, self-laminating tape, and heat shrink tubes. The descriptions of the three tests performed by Keypoint Intelligence s laboratory are listed below: Test 1: This test was conducted using a single label that bore the characters A01, with a cut made after each label until the tape cartridge was exhausted. Each printed label was 30mm long, except the self-laminating tape labels, which were 20mm long. Figure 3: Test One Labels Test 2: This test was conducted using a single label that contained six text blocks. Each block bore the characters B0x, where x was a digit from one to six. The standard tape labels were 93mm long (15.5mm per block to simulate the patchpanel applications use-case), the self-laminating tape labels were 20mm long, and the heat-shrinking were 30mm long. Figure 4: Test Two Labels Test 3: This test was conducted using a single label that bore the characters C01. The length of the labels between varied from model to model. The entire cartridge was printed continuously without any cuts until exhausted. Figure 5: Test Three Labels P4 Keypoint Intelligence

6 Dymo and Brady offer die-cut self-laminating tapes for their label tape printers, which were tested by printing the cartridge continuously until the label tape was exhausted. As illustrated below in Figure 6, self-laminating die-cut tapes vary by shape and size. Therefore, continuous tapes for self-laminating were printed by 20mm long. Brother was not tested in the self-laminating tape category because it does not offering self-laminating tape. Brother s closest product (Flexible ID tape) was not tested because it has a significantly different product structure. Figure 6: Continuous and Die-cut Label Dimensions Cartridge Results When it comes to portable industrial label printers, the more labels that are printed per cartridge means fewer cartridge changes (downtime) and typically a lower cost per label. While the results varied slightly by test and label types, the Epson label printers consistently produced the most labels across all tests and label media. The high yield on the Epson printers came from a combination of very low levels of waste after cuts and the competitive amount of material per cartridge. P5 Keypoint Intelligence

7 Printer Name Table 1: Standard Tape Cartridge s 12mm Width Contin.Tapes in Europe 12mm Width Contin.Tapes in US Standard Tape Test 1 Avg. Test 2 Avg. Test 3 Avg. LW-Z900 LK-4WBN LW-PX BWPX Epson LW-Z700 LK-4WBN LW-PX BWPX LW-600P LK-4WBN LW-PX BWPX LW-PX BWPX PT-E550W TZe-231 TZe Brother PT-P700 TZe-231 TZe mm Width Die Cut PT-D600 TZe-231 TZe Tapes List Avg. Dymo XTL Brady BMP51 MC MC M BMP41 MC MC M As seen in Table 1, the number of labels printed on the continuous standard black-onwhite (12mm or ½ ) label tape was highest on the Epson LW-Z900/PX900, LW-Z700/PX700, and LW-PX750. On the die-cut standard tapes, the XTL300 printed almost exactly the number of labels as listed by the manufacturer, while the Brady printers exceeded the list yield by 3 and 6.5 labels on average. While printing on the self-laminating tape, the Epson label printers also had higher yields than other printers on continuous tapes. Printer Name Table 2: Self-laminating Cartridge s 24mm Width Contin. Tapes in Europe Self-laminating Tape 24mm Width Contin. Tapes in US Test 1 Avg. Test 2 Avg. Test 3 Avg. LW-Z900 LK-6WBC LW-PX SLPX Epson LW-Z700 LK-6WBC LW-PX SLPX LW-600P LK-6WBC LW-PX SLPX LW-PX SLPX mm Width Die Cut Tape List Avg. Dymo XTL Brady BMP51 MC MC BMP41 M P6 Keypoint Intelligence

8 The biggest difference between the Epson printers and other printers was seen in Test 1, which involved printing a single label and then cutting it. This is largely due to efficiency of the Epson label printers, which waste very little tape after cuts. When testing with the heat shrink tube cartridges, the Epson printers again had among the best yields. Table 3: Heat Shrink Tube Cartridge s Printer Name 14.3mm Diameter Contin. Tapes in Europe 14.3mm Diameter Contin. Tapes in US Heat Shrink Tube Test 1 Avg. Test 2 Avg. Test 3 Avg. LW-Z900 LK-4WBA Epson LW-PX STBWPX LW-Z700 LK-4WBA LW-PX STBWPX LW-600P LK-4WBA LW-PX STBWPX LW-PX STBWPX PT-E550W HSe-221 HSe Brother PT-P700 PT-D600 Dymo XTL mm Diameter Die Cut Tapes List Avg. Brady BMP51 MC MC M BMP41 MC MC M The LW-Z900/PX900 printed the most labels on the continuous heat shrink tubes with the other Epson printers close behind. After the Epson printers, the XTL300, BMP51/41, and the PT-E550W followed in ranked order, respectively. Pricing Research Pricing Research Methodology Keypoint Intelligence gathered printer and label tape pricing from sellers in the U.S. and Germany. In each country, three prices were found for each printer and label tape cartridge. Keypoint Intelligence collected pricing from website sources deemed representative of what would be available to most business consumers. The label printer pricing information is for the printer and the basic kit that accompanies it. These U.S. Dollar and Euro prices were averaged to create the figures used for the TCO analysis. Volume discounts, taxes, shipping, or any other incidental costs are not included in the prices listed. This pricing research was done during November and December P7 Keypoint Intelligence

9 Pricing Research Results Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain the pricing and yield information along with the per-label costs for each type of label. The printer prices vary between $61.58 and $480.88, which results from the wide variation in features, capabilities, duty cycle, accessories, and intended usecases for each printer. Table 4 lists the average printer and per-label costs for all 10 label printers on the 12mm standard continuous and die-cut label standard tape. 1 The results of our research show that the LW-Z900/PX900 and LW-Z700/PX700 provide the lowest cost per label on standard tape, which is due to both the device efficiency and the competitive cartridge pricing. At the other end of the per-label cost spectrum are the Brady BMP41 and BMP51, which have a cost that is about three (3) to five (5) times more expensive. The PT-E550W attained the second lowest per-label cost in this analysis. Table 4: Printer and Standard Tape Per-Label Costs 2 Brand Printer Avg. Euro Device Cost Avg. USD Device Cost 12mm Cartridge in Europe 12mm Cartridge in US Avg. Euro Cart. Cost Avg. USD Cart. Cost Per Label Cost in Euros Per Label Cost in USD LW-Z LK-4WBN LW-PX900 - $ BWPX - $ $0.047 LW-Z LK-4WBN Epson LW-PX700 - $ BWPX - $ $0.047 LW-600P LK-4WBN LW-PX400 - $ BWPX - $ $0.054 LW-PX750 - $ BWPX - $ $0.048 PT-E550W $ TZe-231 TZe $ $0.064 Brother PT-P $73.99 TZe-231 TZe $ $0.070 PT-D $64.32 TZe-231 TZe $ $0.067 Dymo Brady XTL $ $ $0.063 XTL $ $ $0.120 BMP $ MC MC $ $0.083 BMP $ MC MC $ $0.086 BMP $ BMP $ M M M M $ $ $ $ In creating the per-label cost analysis, Keypoint Intelligence created an overall average yield based on the respective averages of Test 1 and Test 2. Test 3 was not used because simply printing an entire cartridge until depletion without any cuts is not a realistic label printer use-case. 2 The average cost per label figures in Tables 4, 5, and 6 were generated by using the following formula: (Average Test 1 per-label cost + [average Test 2 per-label cost/6]/2). As noted in the methodology, the reason to divide Test 2 results by 6 is that labels were printed in six (6) label sets. Diecut per-label costs were generated by simply dividing the cartridge cost by the average tested yield. P8 Keypoint Intelligence

10 Table 5 outlines the costs associated with printing on self-laminating tape with portable label printers. Table 5: Printer and Self-laminating Per-Label Costs Brand Printer Avg. Euro Device Cost Avg. USD Device Cost 24mm Cartridge in Europe 24mm Cartridge in US Avg. Euro Cart. Cost Avg. USD Cart. Cost Per Label Cost in Euros Per Label Cost in USD LW-Z LK-6WBC LW-PX900 - $ SLPX - $ $0.072 LW-Z LK-6WBC Epson LW-PX700 - $ SLPX - $ $0.072 LW-600P LK-6WBC LW-PX400 - $ SLPX - $ $0.096 LW-PX750 - $ SLPX - $ $0.072 Dymo XTL $ $ $0.179 Brady BMP $ MC MC $ $0.140 BMP $ M M $ $0.132 The Euro per-label costs vary between and and the U.S. Dollar per-label costs vary between $0.072 and $ In both currencies, the Epson label printers had the lowest per-label cost. Heat shrink tubes have by far the highest costs of the three types of labels in this evaluation. These prices vary significantly, however, by brand and printer model. P9 Keypoint Intelligence

11 Table 6: Printer and Per-Label Heat Shrink Tube Costs Brand Printer Avg. Euro Device Cost Avg. USD Device Cost 14.3mm Heat Shrink in Europe 14.3mm Heat Shrink in US Avg. Euro Cart. Cost Avg. USD Cart. Cost Per Label Cost in Euros Per Label Cost in USD LW-Z LK-4WBA LW-PX900 - $ STBWPX - $ $0.345 LW-Z LK-4WBA Epson LW-PX700 - $ STBWPX - $ $0.348 LW-600P LK-4WBA LW-PX400 - $ STBWPX - $ $0.347 LW-PX750 - $ STBWPX - $ $0.357 Brother PT-E550W $ HSe-221 HSe $ $0.789 Dymo XTL $ $ $0.655 BMP $ MC MC $ $0.661 Brady BMP $ MC MC $ $0.647 BMP $ BMP $ M M (Die cut) (Die cut) M M (Die cut) (Die cut) $ $ $ $0.740 All the Epson printers in our analysis had a lower heat shrink tube cost per label than the other competing brands. This is true in U.S. Dollars and Euros. TCO Analysis While there could be many different TCO comparisons that could be charted into this White Paper, Keypoint Intelligence compared just four similar and competing printers. These four are the Epson LW-Z700/LW-PX700, Brother PT-E550W, Dymo XTL300, and the Brady BMP41. The TCO charts included in this White Paper display the results of simply adding together the cost of one device and the cost to print 500, 4,000, 8,000, 12,000, and 16,000 labels. As a simple formula, TCO is the outcome of the cost of one printer + (cost per label x number of labels printed). Standard Tape TCO Figure 7 includes the standard tape Euro TCO results for the four printers. At 4,000 labels, the PT-E550W starts out with the lowest TCO due to the lower printer price. As the amount of labels printed increases, however, this advantage diminishes, and the LW-Z700/PX700 attains a Euro TCO that is 20.7% lower than that of the PT-E550W when printing 16,000 labels. P10 Keypoint Intelligence

12 $249 $227 $275 $287 $337 $361 $415 $462 $487 $716 $631 $801 $605 $720 $740 $1,198 $975 $1,315 $795 $977 $993 $1,680 $1,319 $1,829 $985 $1,235 $1,246 $1,663 $2,161 $2,343 WHITE PAPER Figure 7: Standard Tape Euro TCO Results 3,500 3,000 2,651 Epson LW-Z700 Continuous 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, ,000 1,072 1, ,143 1,427 1,465 2, , ,854 1, ,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed Brother PT-E550W Continuous Dymo XTL300 Continuous Dymo XTL300 Die Cut Brady BMP 41 Continuous Brady BMP 41 Die Cut The XTL300 and the BMP41 have a standard tape TCO that ranges between approximately two (2) to four (4) times that of the LW-Z700/PX700. This difference in costs is so large that it is 20.1% less expensive to print 16,000 standard tape labels on the LW-Z700/PX700 than it is to print 4,000 labels on the BMP 41 die-cut standard tape. In the results for the standard tape TCO in U.S. dollars, the LW-PX700 started out with the second lowest TCO but then achieved a 10.2% lower TCO at 4,000 labels compared to next closest printer. By 16,000 labels, the LW-PX700 costs 20.2% less to operate than the second place PT-E550W. Figure 8: Standard Tape U.S. Dollar TCO Results 41% lower TCO in U.S. Dollars with the LW- PX700 vs the BMP41 at 16,000 labels while printing on continuous standard label tape. $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Epson LW-PX700 Continuous Brother PT-E550W Continuous Dymo XTL300 Continuous Dymo XTL300 Die Cut Brady BMP 41 Continuous $ ,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed Brady BMP 41 Die Cut P11 Keypoint Intelligence

13 Self-laminating Tape TCO The LW-Z700/PX700 had the lowest TCO from 4,000 through 16,000 labels, followed in order by the XTL300 and BMP51. This result was driven largely by the comparatively low TZe-FX251 cartridge cost. Figure 9: Self-laminating Tape Euro TCO Results 3,500 3,180 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, $262 $323 $457 $515 $951 $947 $805 $1,095 $1,668 $1,506 $1,385 $2,065 $2,385 $2,625 $3,102 1, ,049 1,830 1,090 1,501 2,505 1,361 1,953 Epson LW-Z700 Continuous Dymo XTL300 Die Cut Brady BMP 51 Continuous ,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed At 16,000 labels, the LW-Z700/PX700 had a 30.3% lower TCO than the XTL300, and 57.2% lower TCO than the BMP51. This is due to the high yield and competitive cost of the Epson LK-6WBC cartridges. In the self-laminating tape TCO analysis using U.S. Dollar pricing information, the LW-PX700 had the lowest TCO again. 55% lower TCO in U.S. Dollars with the LW-PX700 on continuous selflaminating label tape vs the XTL300 on die-cut self-laminating label tape at 16,000 labels. $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Figure 10: Self-laminating Tape U.S. Dollar TCO Results 500 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed Epson LW-PX700 Continuous Dymo XTL300 Die Cut Brady BMP 51 Continuous P12 Keypoint Intelligence

14 When printing 16,000 labels, LW-PX700 TCO was 55.4% lower than the XTL300 die-cut labels and 47.2% lower than the BMP 51 continuous labels. Heat Shrink Tube TCO On a per-label basis, the heat shrink tube costs several times more than either standard or self-laminating label tape. This creates a significantly higher TCO for all of the printers included in this TCO analysis. Figure 11: Heat Shrink Tube Euro TCO Results 15,000 12,000 9,000 6,000 3, ,010 2,199 3,195 3,446 2,708 3,744 4,251 6,245 6,605 5,129 5,477 6, ,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed 9,294 9,764 7,550 7,211 8,355 12,343 12,923 9,971 Epson LW-Z700 Continuous Brother PT-E550W Continuous Dymo XTL300 Continuous Brady BMP 41 Continuous Brady BMP 41 Die Cut In the heat shrink tube TCO analysis using the Euro pricing, the LW-Z700/PX700 had a 13.7% lower TCO than the PT-E550W at 16,000 labels. When compared to the XTL300 and BMP41, the LW-Z700/PX700 had a 41.6% and 44.2% lower TCO respectively when printing 16,000 continuous heat shrink tube labels. The heat shrink tube TCO analysis in U.S. Dollars shows that the LW-PX700 had the lowest TCO for all the label quantities. The BMP41 continuous had the second lowest TCO, followed by the XTL300, BMP41 die-cut labels, and PT-E550W. P13 Keypoint Intelligence

15 Figure 12: Heat Shrink Tube U.S. Dollar TCO Results $399 $599 $561 $611 $657 opinion 55% lower TCO in U.S. Dollars with the LW- PX700 vs the PT- E550W on continuous heat shrink tube at 16,000 labels. $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $- $1,616 $3,361 $2,852 $2,874 $3,246 $3,006 $6,518 $5,471 $5,460 $6,204 $4,396 $9,675 $8,090 $8,046 $9,163 $5,786 $12,832 $10,708 $10,632 $12, ,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Labels Printed Epson LW-PX700 Continuous Brother PT-E550W Continuous Dymo XTL300 Continuous Brady BMP 41 Continuous Brady BMP 41 Die Cut At 16,000 labels, the LW-PX700 has a TCO advantage ranging from 45.6% to 54.9% lower when compared to the other printers in Figure 12. Opinion Our analysis indicates that TCO must be among the essential criteria when deciding on the purchase of a portable industrial label printer. While the differences in the upfront costs for these label printers are only a few hundred dollars, the difference in TCO becomes thousands of dollars for just a single printer. The analysis shows that the cost of printing only 700 heat shrink tubes can easily surpass the cost of printer itself. When projecting these costs out for a company that has many portable label printers, the TCO differences between printers could stretch into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars over time. The efficiency and generally competitive cartridge costs of the Epson portable printers give these devices a compelling TCO advantage. In every TCO scenario, the Epson LW- Z700/PX700 (US) offered the lowest TCO amongst the devices to which it was compared. Keypoint Intelligence would expect very similar results to those of the LW-Z700/LW-PX700 (US) for the other Epson portable printers included in this study because of the close per label costs. The benefit of Epson portable label printers' low TCO in addition to factors not considered, including the unique Auto Rewind feature on select printers and the lifetime warranty for U.S. model printers appears to create a compelling value proposition for any company seeking to save time and money. P14 Keypoint Intelligence

16 The Epson printers described in the White Paper are sold by different names in other regions of the world. Please see Table 7 below for the details by model. Table 7: Epson Equivalent Portable Label Printers Names by Regions Epson Equivalent Portable Label Printers Names by Regions KPI Tested Device EU Asia S. Korea N. America LW-Z900 LW-Z900 LW-Z900 LW-Z900 LW-PX900 LW-Z700 LW-Z700 LW-Z700 LW-Z700 LW-PX700 LW-600P LW-600P LW-600P OK600P LW-PX400 LW-PX750 None LW-K600 LW-K600 LW-PX750 P15 Keypoint Intelligence

17 author WHITE PAPER Brendan Morse is a Consultant for InfoTrends Consulting Group. Mr. Morse is responsible for managing and producing custom research for technology 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 analysis 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, and we have applied our best professional judgment to the data obtained. P16 Keypoint Intelligence