logo
SHENZHEN ELITE TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED
Email: phil@elite-tec.com.cn TEL:: 86--15019487110
Home
Home
>
News
>
Company news about Comparison of MIM process and traditional powder metallurgy process
Events
LEAVE A MESSAGE

Comparison of MIM process and traditional powder metallurgy process

2025-10-31

Latest company news about Comparison of MIM process and traditional powder metallurgy process
Why More and More Manufacturers Choose MIM for Precision Parts? From the tiny threads of a phone SIM card tray to the complex structures of medical devices, the precision manufacturing industry is undergoing a technological revolution. Metal Injection Molding (MIM) and traditional Powder Metallurgy (PM) stand as two mainstream technologies, often leaving buyers facing a difficult choice.

The difference between the two is analogous to handmade pottery versus 3D-printed ceramics. The former excels at simple shapes and affordability, while the latter shines in complex structures and maximum precision. Below, we break down their core differences to help you accurately align with your production needs.

I. Raw Materials & Density: Fine Powder Craftsmanship vs. Coarse Powder Pressing

MIM Process

Uses ultra-fine metal powder (2-15μm) — 10 times finer than a human hair — mixed with a specialized binder and injected like toothpaste into molds. The finished product achieves a density of 95%-99%, with nearly no porosity, close to the metal’s theoretical density for a solid, robust feel.

Traditional PM Process

Relies on coarse metal powder (50-100μm) directly pressed into shape via molds. Density reaches only ~85%, with abundant internal pores (similar to uncompacted sand), resulting in slightly lower strength and wear resistance.

Key takeaway: MIM prioritizes fine craftsmanship, while traditional PM focuses on basic shaping. Density differences directly determine product durability.

II. Shape Complexity: 3D All-Rounder vs. 2D Specialist

MIM Process

A game-changer for complex parts, it easily manufactures intricate 3D structures with threads, blind holes, and grooves — such as foldable phone hinges and smartwatch case supports. It offers exceptional design freedom, capable of realizing nearly any precision shape.

Traditional PM Process

Best suited for 2D or shallow 3D parts (e.g., gears, gaskets, simple blocks). Limited by powder-filling capabilities, it struggles with complex internal structures and deep hollowed designs.

Example: MIM can produce intricately carved jewelry, while traditional PM is restricted to solid round pendants — a stark difference in complexity potential.

III. Materials & Performance: Master of Difficult-to-Machine Materials vs. Expert in Common Alloys

MIM Process

Specializes in difficult-to-machine materials like stainless steel, titanium alloys, and high-temperature alloys. These hard-to-cut materials pose challenges and high costs for traditional processes, but MIM handles them seamlessly. Finished products boast superior mechanical properties (Young’s modulus, elongation) compared to traditional PM, with stronger impact and corrosion resistance.

Traditional PM Process

Ideal for low-melting-point, easily machinable materials (e.g., aluminum, zinc, iron-based alloys). It meets basic usage requirements but has limited strength and wear resistance, making it unsuitable for high-performance applications.

Summary: Choose MIM for high-end products demanding top-tier performance; opt for traditional PM for standard industrial parts with basic needs.

IV. Cost & Batch Size: Mass Production Advantage vs. Small-to-Medium Batch Economy

MIM Process

Features relatively high mold costs (similar to custom complex 3D printing templates). However, mass production unlocks its strengths: ~100% material utilization and minimal post-processing. Unit costs decrease with larger batches, making it ideal for annual orders exceeding 100,000 pieces.

Traditional PM Process

Offers simpler processes, lower mold costs, and smaller initial investment. Drawbacks include lower material utilization and potential need for post-machining. It excels for annual small-to-medium batches (10,000–100,000 pieces), especially for simple parts.

Cost benchmark: For 500,000 annual precision parts, MIM total costs can be over 30% lower than traditional PM. For 10,000 simple parts, traditional PM is more economical.

V. Application Areas: High-End Markets vs. Traditional Sectors

MIM Process

Targets high-end markets, including:
  • Consumer electronics (foldable screen hinges, camera brackets)
  • Medical devices (minimally invasive instrument parts, implants)
  • Automotive precision components (gearbox gears, sensor housings)
  • Aerospace
It serves as a quality guarantee for premium products.

Traditional PM Process

Deeply rooted in traditional industrial sectors, such as:
  • Ordinary automotive gears
  • Mechanical bearings
  • Hardware tool accessories
It dominates scenarios with lower precision and performance requirements, leveraging cost advantages.

Choose the Right Process, Avoid Detours

After reviewing the comparison, the decision becomes clear:
  • Select MIM if you need precise, complex, high-performance, or high-volume parts.
  • Select traditional PM if you need simple shapes, cost-effectiveness, or small-to-medium batches.

About Elite Mold Tech

Elite Mold Tech specializes in both MIM and traditional powder metallurgy, delivering end-to-end solutions from product design, mold development, and manufacturing to post-processing. Whether you’re an electronics manufacturer needing high-precision components or a machinery company seeking cost-effective traditional parts, we match you with the optimal production solution — strictly controlling quality and delivery timelines.

Contact Us Today

  • Email: contact@elitemoldtech.com
  • WhatsApp: +86 19860504405
Elite Mold Tech — empowering global manufacturing with professional processes, creating high-quality products with you.

Contact Us at Any Time

86--15019487110
No.2 Baoshi road,jiaoyitang village Tangxiatown,Dongguan,GuangDong. China
Send your inquiry directly to us