(Click to check Technical Data Sheet(TDS), Prices and Suppliers)
Material Finder on the left side is a Customized Search Engine for fast material selection.
Is PEEK better than PPS?
PEEK and PPS serve different application requirements:
Choose PEEK when:
Continuous operation greater than 240°C required
Maximum wear resistance needed (dynamic applications)
Highest mechanical strength critical
Specification justifies premium cost for performance advantage
Choose PPS when:
Operating temperature less than 240°C
Cost sensitivity important
Processing ease prioritised (PPS flows more easily)
Performance comparison:
PEEK offers 20°C higher continuous use temperature (260°C vs 240°C)
PEEK provides superior wear resistance and higher tensile strength
PPS costs approximately 30% less than PEEK
PPS processes more easily with shorter cycle times
Real-world guidance: If your application operates at 230-240°C, experiences aggressive chemicals, or requires dynamic wear resistance, PEEK's performance premium typically justifies the cost through extended component life and reduced maintenance. For applications less than 230°C without extreme wear requirements, PPS often provides excellent cost-effective performance.
How much does PEEK cost?
PEEK material pricing reflects its high-performance capabilities:
Material cost considerations:
PEEK costs significantly more than standard engineering polymers PPS, (nylon, acetal) and alternative metal materials e.g. aluminium, steel, titanium.
Price varies by grade: unfilled, glass-filled, carbon-filled grades have different costs.
Design efficiency and waste reduction advantages
Transitioning from metal to PEEK enables component redesign to improve component performance and reduce material usage.
Metal machining can waste up to 80% of material; injection moulding typically generates less than 5–10% waste.
PEEK is sold by weight but used by volume in moulding applications.
Its low density (½ that of aluminium, ⅙ that of steel) means less material is needed for the same part.
PAEKs are compatible with additive manufacturing, further reducing waste.
Lifecycle cost advantages:
40-50% weight reduction vs metals reduces material usage
Component consolidation via complex moulding reduces assembly costs
Extended service life (2-4x vs alternative polymers) reduces replacement frequency
Maintenance reduction (no corrosion, superior wear resistance) lowers total cost of ownership
Reduced downtime in critical applications provides operational cost savings
Cost justification framework: Material researchers and procurement teams typically accept PEEK's premium through:
Application criticality (failure costs exceed material cost premium)
Lifecycle analysis (2-3 year payback through extended service life)
Performance requirements (no alternative polymer meets specifications)
System-level savings (weight reduction, part consolidation, assembly simplification)