CUTTINGTOOLS / AI
Get Pro
WORKED EXAMPLE · TURNING INSERTS · BRAND-NEUTRAL

What a cost audit actually finds. A worked example, line by line.

Below is a complete audit of a realistic five-line turning insert list: the same steps the free Cost Audit runs on your list, written out in the open so you can judge the method before you trust it with your own numbers.

This is a worked example, not a customer case study. Quantities and prices are representative and marked as such. The grade equivalences are not invented: every cross-brand row below comes from our verified, multi-source cross-reference data, the same data behind the cross-reference pages and the public API.

01 · The list

A typical mid-size shop: five turning positions, one buyer, one monthly insert order.

grade | job | edges consumed per month
GC4325  | 42CrMo4 shafts, general turning  | 900 GC2220  | 304 stainless flanges, finishing | 400 KCP25C  | steel roughing, interrupted cuts | 350 VP15TF  | small-batch mixed steels        | 250 GC4235  | C45 roughing, older line        | 300

02 · The audit, line by line

TRIAL FIRST
GC4325 · ISO P20 · steel turning

Highest spend on the list, and the position with the deepest pool of verified alternatives: ISCAR IC8250, Korloy NC3225 and Seco TP2000 all sit at the same ISO position in multi-source verified data. Where a premium brand does the same ISO job as three rivals, the premium is negotiable even if you never switch. This is the line to trial first.

SECOND TRIAL
GC2220 · ISO M15 · stainless finishing

Verified same-position grades: Kennametal KCM25B and Seco CP500. Worth a trial, but second in line: stainless finishing punishes a geometry mismatch harder than general steel turning, so validate surface finish alongside tool life before moving the order.

KEEP
KCP25C · steel roughing

Already priced at the efficient end of its position. A swap here saves cents per edge and risks a proven process on interrupted cuts. A good audit tells you where not to spend your validation time.

KEEP
VP15TF · ISO P20 · mixed small batches

Verified alternatives exist at this position, but there is no meaningful premium to recover. Flexibility across small batches is exactly what this grade is being paid for. Leave it alone.

DATA TOO THIN
GC4235 · steel roughing, older line

Our cross-reference currently holds only single-catalogue-source rows for this grade. One source is not verification. The audit says exactly that instead of dressing a guess up as a recommendation; the honest output here is "no verified equivalent claim available yet".

03 · The money: cost per edge, not sticker price

Line 1, with illustrative prices. A CNMG 120408 insert has 4 usable edges.

premium grade      : 13.40 EUR / insert  = 3.35 EUR / edge same-position alt :  9.20 EUR / insert  = 2.30 EUR / edge 900 edges / month : 3015 EUR vs 2070 EUR  = 945 EUR / month on one line condition         : tool life holds at equal cutting data

That condition is the whole game. If the alternative burns edges 30 percent faster, the saving is gone. This is why the audit ends with a validation plan, not an order form.

04 · Validation before switching

One machine, one sample part, two weeks. Measure cost per part, not price per insert. Only then move the order. The Expert Review exists for exactly this step if you want a second pair of eyes on the trial setup.

The example in one paragraph: two of five lines carry a probable brand premium worth trialing, two lines the audit tells you not to touch, and one line it refuses to oversell because the data is single-source. If validation holds, the net effect lands around 15 to 25 percent of insert spend. A useful audit is as much a list of things not to do as a savings estimate.

Now run it on your real list.

The free tool runs these exact steps on your own inserts, in your browser, no sign-up. If a line has thin data, it will tell you that too.

Free, no strings: 8-brand grade cross-reference (PDF) · ISO material-group cheat-sheet (PDF)