Urethane Casting vs Injection Molding: Which Is Better?

Injection molding and urethane casting are two standard manufacturing methods used to fabricate many products we encounter daily. When you’re faced with bringing an innovative plastic product to life, deciding between urethane casting vs injection molding is a crucial first step. 

While both processes create highly functional parts, they achieve this in fundamentally different ways. Injection molding throws molten plastic under high pressure into a metal mold, making parts at high speed. On the other hand, urethane casting takes a more patient approach, meticulously filling a silicone mold with liquid resin that cures into a precise replica.

A detailed explanation of the difference between urethane casting and injection molding is needed to help you choose the most suitable option for your project. This article details their strengths, weaknesses, and the ideal situations for each process.  By the end, you’ll be equipped to make an informed decision and bridge the gap between your vision and a tangible reality.

Comparison: Urethane Casting vs. Injection Molding

urethane casting vs injection molding

Although both methods fill a mold cavity with plastic, there are some differences between urethane casting and injection molding. Let’s check them out.

FeaturesInjection MoldingUrethane CastingMold ToolingUses hardened steel or aluminum moldsUses silicone rubber moldsMaterial SelectionSuitable for thermoplastics like ABS, polypropylene, TPU  Typically uses thermoset polyurethanesProduction VolumeBest for large quantitiesOptimal for smaller batchesToleranceAchieves tight tolerances (up to 0.005 inches)Average tolerances around 0.01 inchesWall ThicknessProduces consistent wall thicknesses (0.5 mm to 4 mm)Allows for wall thicknesses of 1 mm to 5 mmUndercutComplex mold designs for undercutsAccommodates undercuts more easilyApplicationsIdeal for high-volume productionSuitable for lower part volumes and rapid prototypingLead TimeLonger lead times, especially for complex designsShorter lead times, beneficial for rapid prototypingCostsHigher tooling costs, cost-effective for high-volumeLower tooling costs, suitable for low to medium volumes

Mold Tooling

The lifespan and maintenance needs of molds in these two processes differ significantly, affecting each process’s overall cost and viability. In injection molding, molds are created from hardened steel or aluminum to withstand the pressure and maintain dimensional stability. Metal injection molds are highly durable and capable of producing numerous parts before requiring replacement or extensive upkeep. This durability renders injection molding cost-effective for large-scale production. However, the initial investment in these molds is higher, and their maintenance may demand specialized expertise.

In contrast, urethane casting typically utilizes silicone rubber molds. The urethane tooling has a limited lifespan. They may deteriorate after producing a certain number of parts, which varies depending on factors like part complexity and casting material. This limited lifespan impacts the long-term feasibility of utilizing urethane casting for continuous production, especially for higher volume requirements.

Material Selection and Properties

Injection molding suits materials like ABS, polypropylene, polyethylene, and TPU. These materials become highly fluid when melted. Their low viscosity is crucial for the material to fill the mold properly. On the other hand, urethane casting typically uses thermoset materials, such as thermoset polyurethanes. These materials permanently harden as they cure.

Production Volume

The choice between these techniques largely depends on the quantity of parts needed. Injection Molding is best for producing large quantities. Its metal molds last longer, and the quick cycle times allow for the cost-effective manufacturing of numerous parts, from thousands to millions.

Urethane casting is optimal for smaller batches. The silicone molds used in this process have a limited lifespan. The slower pace of production also means that the process is not as cost-effective for mass production.


Tolerances play a crucial role in manufacturing, directly impacting precision and consistency. In Injection Molding, tight tolerances of around 0.005 inches (0.127 mm) are achievable. This is a great option for parts needing precise specifications and consistent replication. While capable of good tolerances, urethane casting generally falls short of injection molding’s precision, with average urethane tolerances around 0.01 inches (0.25 mm). While this is suitable for many applications, it is not ideal for ultra-high precision parts.

Achieving tight tolerances with cast urethane is challenging due to flexible silicone molds that are susceptible to movement. Conversely, metal injection molds offer less dimension variation but still experience minor changes due to plastic contraction during cooling.

Wall Thickness

Injection Molding can produce parts with wall thicknesses from 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) to 4 mm (0.16 inches) with high consistency. This is crucial for parts needing structural integrity and uniformity. Urethane Casting allows for wall thicknesses from 1 mm (0.04 inches) to 5 mm (0.20 inches). However, maintaining uniform thickness is more challenging, especially for larger or complex parts.


Managing undercuts in injection molding presents difficulties. The inflexibility of metal molds necessitates intricate designs to accommodate undercuts. To eject the part undamaged, it might be necessary to introduce movements, cut holes or slots, or incorporate movable parts like slides or lifters into the mold. Such complexity can escalate both the expense and the time needed to produce the mold.

Urethane casting can easily handle undercuts because it uses flexible molds. The elasticity of silicone enables the mold to flex, releasing parts with undercuts without the need for complex mold mechanisms. This characteristic renders the process more suitable for parts featuring intricate designs and undercuts.


Injection molding reigns supreme for high-volume production. Its ability to consistently deliver parts with tight tolerances makes it ideal for demanding industries like automotive, electronics, aerospace, and medical devices. These sectors rely on mass-produced components that function flawlessly and meet stringent specifications.

Conversely, urethane casting shines in situations requiring lower part volumes. Its affordability and fast turnaround times make it perfect for prototypes, short-run productions, or limited batches for market testing.  While complexity might be lower compared to injection molding, urethane casting can still produce functional parts for various applications.

Lead Time

Lead times for these techniques depend on project complexity and part volume. In injection molding, lead times can extend, especially during the tooling phase. Simple parts may require 4 to 6 weeks, while more intricate designs could take 8 to 12 weeks or longer.

On the other hand, urethane casting typically boasts shorter lead times, making it beneficial for rapid prototyping and urgent projects. Simple parts might be ready in 1 to 2 weeks, while more complex designs could take 3 to 4 weeks.


A crucial difference between these processes is the injection molding and urethane casting cost. Each process has its financial dynamics, shaped by volume, complexity, and material choice.

  • Tooling Cost: Plastic injection molding requires robust, typically metal molds, which can be expensive, especially for complex designs. However, these molds are long-lasting and suitable for high-volume production. Urethane casting employs silicone molds, which are less costly to produce. These molds are suitable for short runs and prototypes but have a shorter lifespan than metal molds. 
  • Material Costs: In injection molding, thermoplastics are often used, with costs varying based on the type of plastic. Economies of scale play a crucial role, with higher volumes typically reducing the cost per unit. However, the price of urethane resins can vary based on the required properties for the final product.
  • Per Part Cost: Examining the per-part cost reveals more about the economic landscape of these manufacturing processes. For high-volume production, injection molding can be cost-effective. For instance, producing 10,000 units of standard plastic gear might cost around $2.00 per unit. In contrast, urethane casting is more suited for low to medium-volume production. Producing the same plastic gear in volumes of 500 might cost about $3.50 per unit. However, this cost can vary depending on the complexity and material used.

What are the Similarities Between Injection Molding and Urethane Casting?

Although these manufacturing processes differ in many ways, they both hold significant value in manufacturing due to some key similarities they share:

vacuum casting plastic parts

Use of Molds

Both processes rely heavily on molds to create the desired final product. A key similarity lies in the overall function of the molds. In both processes, the mold cavity replicates the exact geometry of the desired part. The material, either urethane resin or molten plastic, fills this cavity to take on its shape.

Complex Part Geometry

Both processes can produce parts with intricate details and non-linear features that might be difficult or impossible with conventional manufacturing methods. In both cases, the mold cavity acts as a highly precise template that captures the nuances of the part design. This allows for features like thin walls, undercuts, and sharp corners to be reproduced with good fidelity.

Material Selection

A key similarity between these processes is their ability to cater to a wide range of product needs and specifications. Urethane resin can be formulated to achieve a spectrum of durometers, from rigid plastics for structural applications to soft elastomers for gaskets and seals. Similarly, injection molding offers various thermoplastics, from stiff engineering resins to flexible rubbers.

Finishing Options

Both methods can produce parts with a smooth, glossy finish, or a textured matte finish. This is achieved through various post-processing techniques like sanding, polishing, buffing, and media blasting. The choice of technique depends on the specific desired outcome, such as a high-shine finish for visual appeal or a textured surface for improved grip.

What Is Urethane Casting?

The urethane casting process involves pouring liquid urethane into a mold, typically made of a soft material like silicone, and curing it in an oven or at room temperature. After curing, a machinist opens the mold, and the cast part is removed. This method is commonly used for low-volume production runs or rapid prototyping before injection molding. Soft molds for this process are made from a master pattern, which is a CNC-machined or 3D-printed replica of the part. The master pattern is coated with liquid silicone, allowed to cure, and then split in half to create mold halves with identical cavities to the part.

urethane casting mold tooling

Urethane casting is cost-effective for producing low-volume plastic parts similar to injection molding. These parts are suitable for evaluations during design stages, as well as user testing and verification. Various polyurethane resins are available to meet different design criteria, including surface textures, hardness, and temperature resistance. 

Advantages of Urethane Casting

Depending on the specific requirements, urethane casting has several advantages for your projects. Here are some of the benefits:

High Accuracy

This exciting technology can achieve good dimensional accuracy. This translates to parts that meet tight tolerances and function as intended. The typical tolerance of +/- 0.020 inches per inch in this process is a respectable starting point. It is sufficient for many applications, especially for prototypes and low-volume production runs. This technology balances precision and cost-effectiveness, making it a great choice for projects requiring detailed and dimensionally accurate parts.

Extensive Finishing Options

Urethane parts can be produced with a standard, smooth finish, which is suitable for applications requiring a clean and professional look.  However, the true power lies in the ability to create custom finishes. This opens doors for directly incorporating hardware installations into the casting process, such as threaded inserts or mounting brackets. Additionally, parts can be painted or customized with various surface treatments to achieve unique visual effects or enhance functionality through improved grip or texture.

Rapid Turnaround

When project timelines are tight, urethane casting is ideal for several crucial stages in the product development cycle. It brings the project to the next level for end-user testing. Functional prototypes can be produced much faster through this process than other methods. This allows for valuable user feedback to be incorporated early in the design process, potentially saving time and resources in the long run.

Reduced Tooling Costs

This manufacturing process is also cost-effective in terms of tooling. The key to this cost-effectiveness lies in the silicone material used for the mold tooling. Silicone molds are significantly less expensive than steel or aluminum molds typically required for injection molding. This translates to lower upfront investment for each project. Therefore, businesses can test designs and validate concepts without breaking the bank.

Suitable for Low-Volume Production

The lower cost of silicone molds makes urethane casting an excellent option for low-volume production runs. Entrepreneurs launching new products can leverage this process to create initial production runs for market testing or pre-orders without a large upfront investment. Businesses can also use it for short-term production needs or to bridge the gap between prototyping and full-scale injection molding when demand increases.


Despite its many advantages, this technology may not be suitable in all conditions due to some setbacks. Some of them include:

Lower Production Volume

It isn’t suitable for large-batch production because silicone molds wear out faster than the metal molds used in molding. Although it is cost-effective for low-volume productions, urethane cast parts may have higher per unit cost as the quantity increases.

Inconsistencies in Larger Batches

Unlike the rigid steel or aluminum molds employed in injection molding, silicone molds can exhibit slight degradation over time, especially during demolding. This can lead to dimensional variations or minor surface imperfections in parts produced later in a larger batch.

Durability of Molds

As mentioned earlier, silicone molds come with a shorter lifespan. Their degradation can manifest as slight tears, dimensional variations, or surface imperfections in parts produced later in a production run. As a result, urethane casting is most suited for situations where long-term production isn’t the primary goal. 

What Is Injection Molding?

aluminum injection mold

Injection molding forms products by forcing molten plastics into mold cavities at high pressure. Molds for injection molding are made using CNC machining or electric discharge machining, achieving tight tolerances of +0.005” on average. Typically, molds are crafted from hardened steel or aluminum due to the high temperatures and pressures involved. Molds can be single or multiple cavities, with steel molds preferred for durability despite higher costs. 

In the injection molding process, the material is fed into a heated barrel, melted, and injected into the mold cavity to cool and harden. Cooling time can be minimized by cooling lines that circulate water or oil. The process can also combine different materials in two-shot molding, allowing for varied product characteristics. The pressurized filling and rapid cooling in this process make it faster and more repeatable, which is ideal for large-scale manufacturing.

Advantages of Injection Molding 

Injection molding is a highly flexible technique for manufacturing plastic components, offering several benefits compared to alternative plastic molding methods.

Complex Geometries with Tight Tolerances

This efficient technique enables the production of large volumes of uniform, intricate parts. With this process, achieving repeatable injection molding tolerances of ± 0.500 mm (0.020’’) is straightforward. In certain instances, parts with tolerances as tight as ± 0.125 mm (0.005’’) can be produced. This provides accuracy suitable for most applications, comparable to parts made through printing or CNC machining.

Compatible with Various Materials

Over 25,000 engineered materials are compatible with injection molding, spanning thermoplastics, thermosets, resins, and silicones. You will always find the material that provides the right blend of mechanical, physical, and chemical properties for your needs. Common materials include polyethylene (PE), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), etc. You can also blend materials to tailor the part’s strength, impact resistance, or stiffness. An example is adding glass fibers to enhance strength.

High Efficiency

Injection molding production cycles are usually complete within 10 to 60 seconds. For complex shapes requiring around 120 seconds, manufacturers can incorporate multiple smaller parts into one larger mold. This will help further enhance efficiency. This approach allows for the production of hundreds of identical parts per hour at a reduced cost.

High Repeatability and Reliability

This technology also offers outstanding repeatability. After your mold is made, you can manufacture thousands of parts before any maintenance on the tooling is required. An aluminum mold typically endures 5,000 to 10,000 cycles, while a steel mold for full-scale production can exceed 100,000 cycles. This method ensures each part produced using the same mold is identical.

Possibility of Material Reuse

Injection molding produces minimal post-manufacturing waste compared to other production methods. Fortunately, sprues, runners, and other remnants can be efficiently ground down, melted, and recycled. This way, you can cut down on material costs and minimize waste.

Disadvantages of Injection Molding 

Plastic injection molding offers numerous advantages, yet it also has its drawbacks. Some disadvantages include:

High Initial Costs

Creating custom injection molding tooling for each part incurs high initial start-up costs, making it less cost-effective for low-volume production runs. The cost of tooling for simple designs and small production runs typically ranges from $3,000 to $5,000. However, tooling costs can be several times higher for large, intricate molds ready for full-scale production. While these molds can be reused multiple times, reducing tooling costs in the long run, the upfront investment should be carefully considered.

Longer Initial Lead Times 

Injection molding requires 5 to 7 weeks to create the tooling and an additional 2 to 4 weeks to manufacture and dispatch the parts. This extended duration is partly due to the mold’s complexity, incorporating detailed runner systems and cooling channels to ensure efficient material flow and quick cooling. Designing and testing these molds can take months, and any modifications to the design might prolong the production process further. 

Design Limitations

When designing a prototype for molding, several design constraints need navigation. For instance, wall thickness and draft angles must fall within a specific range. Any deviation may cause warping, sinking, draft marks, and other defects on the finished part. Design changes can also be costly, necessitating the creation of an entirely new mold. This can significantly drive up the time and expense of your project.

Which Solution Is Right for Your Project?

Injection urethane casting molding and cater to an extensive range of applications. Choosing the right process will depend on the specific requirements of your project. When selecting between the two technologies, consider the following factors:

rubber plastic parts

1. What’s Your Expected Production Volume and Budget?

Urethane casting is suitable for prototyping or small production runs, while injection molding is better for medium-to-large production runs. Casting typically produces 1-10 parts per day, while injection molding can yield hundreds or thousands, depending on mold cavities. If you need to change a design at any point, modifying molds for vacuum casting is simpler and less expensive than redoing or creating new tooling for injection molding. This cost advantage positions vacuum casting as a preferred choice in the initial stages of development. Injection molding requires more upfront investment, especially because of the injection mold tooling costs. However, it offers a much lower cost per unit.

2. What Are Your Lead Time Requirements?

Creating molds for urethane casting is quicker than for injection molding. The lead time for urethane casting is usually between 5 to 7 days, while rapid tooling for injection molding requires at least two weeks. Thus, for projects that are urgent and have low volume, urethane casting is the preferred method. However, urethane casting mold lasts for only 10 to 25 uses, while a single injection mold can last for hundreds to thousands of uses. Thus, injection molding is a quicker option for producing larger quantities.

3. Which Material Options Are You Considering?

Urethane casting offers a limited selection of curable urethanes, whereas injection molding supports a wide range of thermoplastics and thermosets. Businesses often utilize urethane casting for initial prototypes before creating their final injection molded parts. While this approach is advisable, it’s crucial to consider the specific requirements of your prototype or project. If your project demands parts from the production-grade material, you must select the suitable plastic accordingly.

When choosing between these unique processes, partnering with skilled manufacturers is crucial for incorporating these methods effectively during product development. RapidDirect stands out for our advanced solutions. Specializing in injection molding and urethane casting, we provide comprehensive manufacturing solutions that promise quality, affordability, and rapid execution.

Our injection molding services include top-tier prototype molding using rapid tooling in soft steel or aluminum. We efficiently manage various demands, including precise tolerances and intricate shapes, to ensure superior parts with fast delivery. Moreover, our silicon molding and urethane vacuum casting expertise allow us to produce several parts in just a few days. Depending on the part’s complexity and the quantity needed, you are sure to get top-quality results from us. 


Injection molding and urethane casting are essential processes that are useful for many applications in different industries. Deciding which method to use depends on the project’s requirements, such as the quantity needed, budget, precision requirements, and many more.

Like all manufacturing methods, urethane casting and injection molding have advantages and drawbacks. RapidDirect employs engineering specialists who can guide you in selecting the optimal process. Regardless of your choice, we can guarantee the quality and cost-effectiveness of your final product. Contact us today to begin the process.

Source link