0.5g vs 1g vs 2g Fill Size Economics for Carts and AIOs
Compare 0.5g, 1g and 2g fill size economics for carts and AIOs using cost per saleable device, cost per gram, measured yield, full-use validation and current quotes.
Comparing 0.5g, 1g, and 2g fill sizes requires two views of the same program: cost per saleable device and cost per saleable gram. A larger fill can spread some device and packaging costs across more oil, but it also commits more oil to each unit. The right choice depends on the actual hardware quote, filling results, customer demand, and performance through the full intended fill.
Build a separate model for each cartridge and AIO configuration. A 1g cartridge and a 1g all-in-one should not inherit the same battery, packaging, filling, or support assumptions merely because their nominal fill weights match.
Define the quantities before comparing prices
Distinguish reservoir capacity, target fill weight, accepted fill-weight range, ordered empty units, filled units, and released saleable units. “1g” in a product name is not a complete filling specification. Confirm the approved fill for the oil and exact hardware revision.
Use the same accounting period and cost boundary for all three formats. Decide whether the comparison includes only manufacturing costs or also distribution, returns, and other program expenses. Apply that boundary consistently so one format does not appear cheaper simply because a cost is missing.
Keep oil and device costs separate
For each candidate, record the actual landed hardware cost, target oil cost, packaging, variable filling labor, consumables, and any configuration-specific testing or handling. For an AIO, confirm what the hardware price includes rather than adding or omitting battery costs by assumption.
Keep one-time expenses visible: samples, tooling, artwork, qualification, fixtures, and production setup. Allocate them across the expected saleable quantity for the program. Show how the result changes if the launch sells less than forecast or the brand changes the approved configuration.
Use a common cost model
Cost per saleable device = total costs within the defined program boundary ÷ released saleable devices.
Cost per saleable gram = the same program costs ÷ total accepted oil weight in those saleable devices.
For a uniform target fill, the second denominator can be calculated as saleable units multiplied by accepted fill weight. If actual fill varies, use the accepted weight records rather than pretending every unit is identical. Keep oil lost to filling, rejected units, retention samples, and rework in the appropriate cost ledger.
These equations do not supply a market price or predict yield. They make different formats comparable when your team supplies current quotes and measured production inputs.
Compare the formats with explicit questions
| Target fill | Economic question | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5g | Does the smaller purchase and fill suit the intended customer and oil program despite the device cost per gram? | Current quote, saleable yield, accepted fill, and channel demand. |
| 1g | Does this configuration provide the right balance of device cost, oil commitment, and full-use performance? | Comparable cartridge or AIO quote, pilot results, and customer evidence. |
| 2g | Does spreading device cost across more oil outweigh the additional oil commitment and configuration-specific risks? | Exact 2g hardware specification, full-fill validation, yield, and returns data. |
Compare actual offers from the cartridge range and AIO range. Confirm which target fills are approved for the proposed model instead of assuming every listed device supports every row.
Count losses at the point they occur
A rejected empty unit, a rejected filled unit, and a returned finished unit create different exposures. Record when the loss occurred and what can be recovered under the approved procedure. A failed filled unit may involve oil, hardware, labor, packaging, and investigation; do not model it as the empty-device price alone.
Use measured observations from comparable runs. If the brand has not established yield or returns for a new configuration, mark them as assumptions and show a sensitivity range selected by the responsible team. Do not borrow a published failure rate from another supplier or product.
Include inventory and commitment
MOQ, case quantities, SKU splits, decoration minimums, and payment terms affect how much cash and inventory the program commits. Request the current terms for each offer. A unit-price discount does not establish the best purchasing decision when demand and configuration approval remain uncertain.
Compare the release quantity with the actual forecast and reorder plan. Identify what happens to unused decorated hardware or packaging if the oil, artwork, market, or device revision changes. Record the treatment of obsolete inventory in the business case.
Validate before selecting the larger fill
Run the exact oil and production process through the full intended use of each candidate. Agree on acceptance criteria with qualified product and quality personnel. Review filling fit, leakage, draw behavior, charging needs where applicable, remaining oil, and field-support implications.
Use the hardware RFQ to collect comparable offers, then confirm fill configurations and sample requirements with Finished Goods. Choose the format whose verified performance, cost model, and demand evidence fit the program. The largest nominal fill is not an economic answer by itself.
