Fiber vs CO2 Laser Cutting Cost: Hourly Rates & Cost per Part

Every shop still running a CO2 laser next to a fiber machine — or deciding whether to finally retire it — eventually asks the same question: what does each machine actually cost to run, and which one should this part be quoted on? The search for a CO2 laser cutting cost calculator usually starts there, because the old machine's operating cost is felt in the electricity bill and the maintenance invoices but rarely written down as an hourly rate you can quote from. And without two honest rates, the shop quotes both machines at one blended number — which overprices the fiber work and underprices everything the CO2 touches.

This guide builds the comparison properly: the hourly rate build-up for each source (power draw, laser gas, optics and consumables, maintenance), the speed differences that turn similar hourly rates into very different costs per part, the places where CO2 still genuinely wins, and a worked example running the same bracket across both machines in EUR. The method for turning any of these rates into a full quote — cut length, pierces, nesting, gas, setup — is covered in the laser cutting cost calculation guide; this article is about which numbers to feed it.

Fiber vs CO2 operating cost at a glance

The 2026 calibration picture for job-shop machines in the mid-power class (2–6 kW), fully burdened. As always, these are ranges to calibrate your own build-up against, not prices to copy — your electricity contract, maintenance history, and depreciation schedule move every row.

Cost component (per machine hour)	Fiber (2–6 kW)	CO2 (2–4 kW)
Electricity (source + chiller)	€3–7	€12–24
Laser / resonator gas	—	€2–5
Optics and consumables	€1–3	€3–8
Maintenance reserve	€1–4	€5–15
Operating delta subtotal	€5–14	€22–52
Fully burdened hourly rate	€90–160 ($100–175)	€70–120 ($75–130)

Read the table carefully, because it contains an apparent contradiction that trips up half the fiber-vs-CO2 conversations in the industry. The CO2 machine costs €20–40 more per hour to operate, yet its fully burdened rate is lower — because the burdened rate also carries depreciation, and an aging CO2 machine bought a decade ago carries far less of it than a recent fiber source. How to assemble a burdened rate from depreciation, floor space, energy, maintenance, and operator is the subject of the machine shop hourly rate calculation guide; the point here is that the hourly rates alone make the two machines look closer than they are. The real separation shows up in the next section, because the fiber cuts most metal two to four times faster — and cost per part is rate divided by speed.

The hourly rate build-up: where the money actually goes

Electricity is the headline difference, and it comes from wall-plug efficiency. A modern fiber source converts roughly 35–50% of the electricity it draws into beam; a CO2 resonator manages around 8–10%. Add the supporting cast — a chiller sized to dump the waste heat, and on CO2 machines a turbine or blower circulating the resonator gas — and a 4 kW fiber machine draws somewhere in the 15–25 kW range at the wall while a 4 kW CO2 machine draws 50–80 kW. At 2026 industrial electricity prices of €0.20–0.30 per kWh, that is €3–7 per hour against €12–24 per hour, running or idling in ready state.

Laser gas exists only on one side of the ledger. The CO2 resonator consumes a premixed helium-nitrogen-CO2 gas continuously while the source is on — a modest but permanent €2–5 per hour, with helium prices doing the moving. A fiber source has no resonator gas at all. (Assist gas — the oxygen or nitrogen that clears the kerf — is the same story on both machines and is costed per job, not per machine hour, as the laser cutting guide covers.)

Optics and consumables diverge because the beam paths are different animals. A CO2 machine delivers the beam over mirrors that need alignment and periodic replacement, plus a focusing lens that degrades; the beam path may need purge gas. A fiber machine delivers the beam through a sealed fiber to a cutting head whose main consumable is a protective window at a few tens of euros. Nozzles are common to both.

Maintenance is where old CO2 machines quietly bleed. Resonator rebuilds or RF tube replacements, turbine bearing overhauls, mirror alignments after every crash — a realistic reserve on a working CO2 machine is €5–15 per hour against €1–4 for a fiber source, whose diode modules are typically rated for tens of thousands of hours. On a machine past its depreciation, maintenance is the ownership cost, and shops that quote the old machine as "free because it's paid off" are ignoring the one line that is still growing.

Speed is the real divider: cost per part, not cost per hour

Hourly rates within 30% of each other would suggest the machines compete closely. They do not, because on the thin and mid-gauge sheet that dominates job-shop work, fiber cuts dramatically faster. Calibration points for mild steel, mid-power machines:

Material / thickness	Fiber cut speed	CO2 cut speed	Speed ratio
Mild steel, 1 mm	8–12 m/min	2.5–4 m/min	~3x
Mild steel, 3 mm	4.5–6 m/min	2–3 m/min	~2x
Mild steel, 6 mm	2.5–3.5 m/min	1.5–2.2 m/min	~1.6x
Stainless, 2 mm (N2)	5–8 m/min	2–3 m/min	~2.5x
Aluminium, 3 mm (N2)	4–7 m/min	1.5–2.5 m/min	~2.5x

The 1.06 µm fiber wavelength couples into metal far better than the 10.6 µm CO2 wavelength, and the advantage is largest exactly where job shops live: thin sheet. It also extends to materials CO2 handles badly — aluminium, brass, and copper reflect 10.6 µm strongly enough that many CO2 machines either refuse them or crawl through them, while fiber cuts them as routine work.

Divide rate by speed and the picture snaps into focus. On 1 mm mild steel: a fiber at €120/h cutting 10 m/min costs €0.20 per metre of cut; a CO2 at €95/h cutting 3.5 m/min costs €0.45 per metre. The machine with the higher hourly rate produces the cut for well under half the money — and roughly 2–3x cheaper is the honest headline for thin metal generally. As thickness climbs the ratio compresses, and by 10–12 mm plate the two machines are close enough that the decision is about edge quality and capacity rather than cost.

There is a second-order effect worth naming: capacity. An hour of fiber time produces two to three times the parts of an hour of CO2 time on thin sheet, which means the fiber absorbs its overhead across more parts and frees hours for more work. A shop quoting from capacity-based pricing will feel this directly: the fiber hour is scarcer per part, not per hour.

Where CO2 still earns its floor space

The comparison is not a eulogy for CO2 — there is work the old wavelength still does better, and some it does exclusively.

Acrylic is the big one. The 10.6 µm CO2 wavelength is absorbed beautifully by acrylic (PMMA), producing the flame-polished, glass-clear edge the material is bought for; thick acrylic up to 20–25 mm cuts cleanly on CO2 power that fiber cannot touch, because 1.06 µm passes through clear acrylic essentially without coupling. A fiber laser does not cut clear acrylic badly — it does not cut it at all. The same absorption logic covers wood, leather, textiles, many plastics, and rubber: if the shop's mix includes signage, gaskets, or display work, the CO2 is not a legacy machine, it is the only machine for the job.

Thick plate is a narrower case. For years CO2 held an edge-quality advantage on thick stainless and mild steel, and some shops still prefer its edge on 15–25 mm work. High-power fiber (6–12 kW and up) has closed most of that gap in 2026, but a shop whose CO2 already cuts its thick-plate mix acceptably has little cost reason to move that work — the speed ratio at those thicknesses is too small to pay for the change.

If the machine decision is really a process decision — laser against other cutting processes entirely — the laser vs plasma vs waterjet comparison covers where each process wins; this article assumes the job belongs on a laser and asks which one.

Worked example: one bracket, two machines

A mounting bracket in 1.5 mm mild steel: 1.8 m of total cut length, 6 pierces, batch of 100, cut with air assist on both machines. Same nesting, same material cost per part — the only variable is the machine.

Fiber, €120/h burdened: at 9 m/min, the cut takes 12 s; six pierces at ~0.3 s add 1.8 s; call rapids and dwell 2 s. Roughly 16 s per part, or 0.27 min. Machine cost: 0.27 × €2.00/min = €0.53 per part.

CO2, €95/h burdened: at 3.2 m/min, the cut takes 34 s; six pierces at ~0.8 s add 4.8 s; rapids 3 s. Roughly 42 s per part, or 0.70 min. Machine cost: 0.70 × €1.58/min = €1.11 per part.

Line (per part, lot 100)	Fiber	CO2
Cutting time	~16 s	~42 s
Machine cost	€0.53	€1.11
Material (same nest)	€0.85	€0.85
Setup €120 ÷ 100	€1.20	€1.20
Cost per part	€2.58	€3.16
Batch machine hours	0.45 h	1.17 h

Two readings. On this bracket the fiber's cutting block is 2.1x cheaper, even though its hourly rate is 26% higher — that is the speed ratio doing the work. But note how the total per-part gap shrinks to about 18%, because material and setup are identical on both machines; on small parts, those shared blocks dominate. The larger number in the table is the last row: the CO2 needs nearly three times the machine hours for the same batch. Price the CO2 job at the fiber's cost and you lose margin; price the fiber job at the CO2's cost and you lose the order — and either way, the CO2 has consumed capacity the fiber would have returned to the schedule.

Quoting a mixed floor: two rates, not one blended number

The practical failure mode in shops running both sources is a single "laser rate" applied to whatever machine has capacity. The blended rate systematically misprices in both directions: fiber jobs quoted at the blend carry the CO2's operating cost and lose competitiveness on exactly the thin-gauge work where the fiber should win; CO2 jobs quoted at the blend under-recover the resonator gas, the electricity, and the maintenance reserve that the old machine genuinely consumes.

The fix is mechanical. Build each machine's burdened rate separately — the hourly rate guide walks through the arithmetic — and keep a speed table per machine, per material, per thickness. Then the quote routes naturally: thin metal and reflective alloys to the fiber rate and fiber speeds, acrylic and non-metals to the CO2, thick plate to whichever machine the shop actually runs it on. Two estimators quoting the same part should land on the same machine and the same number, which only happens when the routing rule and both rate cards are written down rather than carried in someone's head.

FAQ: fiber vs CO2 laser cutting costs

Is a fiber laser cheaper to run than a CO2 laser? Yes, decisively on metal. The fiber's operating cost per hour is €20–40 lower (electricity, no resonator gas, less maintenance), and it cuts thin sheet two to four times faster — the combined effect is a cost per part roughly 2–3x lower on thin metal, shrinking as thickness climbs. On non-metals the question inverts: fiber does not cut clear acrylic or wood at all.

How much does a fiber laser cost per hour in 2026? A fully burdened rate of €90–160 per hour ($100–175) is the working range for mid-power job-shop machines — depreciation, floor space, electricity (typically €3–7/h at the wall including the chiller), consumables, maintenance, and operator burden. New high-power machines sit at the top of the range on depreciation alone; treat the range as a calibration envelope for your own build-up.

How much does a CO2 laser cost per hour? €70–120 per hour ($75–130) fully burdened is typical — a lower rate than fiber, but only because an aged machine carries little depreciation. The operating block is much heavier: €12–24/h of electricity at 8–10% wall-plug efficiency, €2–5/h of resonator gas, and a €5–15/h maintenance reserve for mirrors, turbine, and resonator work. A "paid-off" CO2 machine is not free; it is trading depreciation for maintenance.

Which laser cuts acrylic, fiber or CO2? CO2, and it is not close: the 10.6 µm wavelength is absorbed by acrylic and leaves the flame-polished edge the material is chosen for, up to 20–25 mm thick on modest power. The fiber's 1.06 µm beam passes through clear acrylic without coupling, so a fiber laser effectively cannot cut it. The same holds for wood, leather, and most clear plastics — that work keeps a CO2 machine on the floor even in an all-metal shop.

From drawing to a quote on either machine

Once both rate cards and speed tables exist, the remaining work on every job is the same take-off: material and thickness from the title block, total cut length, pierce count, the nest, and the batch. That reading is where quoting time actually goes, and where shortcuts creep in when the inbox is full — a thickness assumed, pierces undercounted, the part routed to whichever machine the estimator saw first.

QuoteBuddy reads the technical drawing and surfaces those inputs — material, thickness, geometry, contours and holes — and then prices the job deterministically from your machine rates and your speed tables, whichever source the work is routed to. The fiber and the CO2 each keep their own honest rate, the routing rule is applied the same way every time, and the quote is an itemised build-up you can defend line by line instead of a blended number that averages two different machines into one wrong price.

Start a 30-day trial and run the same drawing against both rate cards — from upload to an itemised quote PDF. Seeing the two costs side by side, per part and per batch hour, is usually the moment the blended rate finally gets retired along with the excuses for it.