Side-by-side comparison
| Question | CO₂ laser | Continuous inkjet |
|---|---|---|
| How is the code made? | Controlled material or coating reaction | Ink droplets deposited on the surface |
| Routine coding fluids | No ink or make-up fluid | Ink and, depending on system, solvent or make-up |
| Mark permanence | Usually permanent when the application is proven | Depends on ink, substrate and handling |
| Substrate fit | Excellent on compatible paperboard, films, plastics, glass and organics | Broad, subject to selecting a suitable ink |
| Safety equipment | Guarding, interlocks and fume extraction | Ink handling and ventilation considerations |
| Changeovers | Digital message changes; focus and product position remain important | Digital message changes; printhead position and ink suitability matter |
When CO₂ laser is a strong choice
Laser is attractive when customers need a durable batch, date, serial, barcode or 2D code on a compatible material. It can remove coding-fluid purchasing and handling while producing a clean, non-contact mark. It is particularly compelling on stable, repeatable production where the mark has been validated at line speed.
When inkjet may remain the practical choice
Inkjet may suit applications with highly variable substrates, irregular marking positions or materials that do not give adequate laser contrast. It can also be practical when the existing line, operators and consumable supply are already standardised around inkjet. A technology review should include code quality, uptime and total operating cost—not a single feature.
How to decide without disrupting production
Provide samples and line data, define an acceptance test and compare marks under real handling conditions. Review capital cost, consumables, extraction, servicing, planned life and changeover time. Oxford Traceability can arrange a sample trial and advise on line integration.