You searched for a number. Here's the honest problem with giving you one: the invoice for cryogenic treatment is the smallest part of what it costs you — and the part that varies least. What varies is whether the process you paid for was real, and what that decision does to your scrap rate and your downtime for the next several years. That's the cost worth understanding. It's also the one no price list can show you.
Cryogenic processing has operators at every level, and some of them are still quoting figures they set in the mid-2000s. It reads as a bargain. Read it the other way: a process whose price hasn't moved in fifteen years is a process that hasn't moved either. No new equipment. No deeper temperatures. No surface technologies added. No reason to charge more, because nothing more is being done.
The lowest quote doesn't cost less. It buys a different, smaller service with the same name on it. The difference gets paid for later, on your floor, by you.
Every one of these is a genuine cost input for us. Every one of them is also a thing a lower quote can quietly leave out. That's not a coincidence.
Notice what's not on the list: the part itself. We're not marking up your steel. You're paying for hours at temperature, control over how it got there, and the technology applied to the surface. Take those away and the price drops — because the service did.
The invoice is paid once. The consequences of a shallow cycle are paid on a schedule.
Across the case studies we've published, the return isn't on the invoice line. It's in tooling that ran multiples of its previous life — industrial tooling first, D2 punches and dies, cutting tools, gears, and, well down the list, brake rotors. None of that shows up in a comparison of quotes. All of it shows up in your numbers a year later.
Including us. A real process has answers to all seven. The answers are the specification you're actually buying, whoever you buy it from.
We'll answer all seven for your specific part before you commit to anything.
Two reasons, and neither is coyness. First, the cost genuinely depends on the part — its mass, section, material, quantity, and what's being added to the cycle — so a single figure would be wrong for almost everyone who read it. Second, a number on a page invites comparison against services that share the name and not the process. We'd rather quote the actual job and tell you exactly what's in it.
For a part whose failure mode is wear, fatigue, or dimensional drift, and whose failure costs you downtime or scrap — usually, yes, and the case studies show by how much. For a part that isn't wearing out, or that fails for reasons the process doesn't address, no — and we'll tell you that rather than treat it.
The material and its hardness, the section thickness, roughly how many, and how the part fails in service. With that we can tell you what the process will do, what it won't, and what it costs for your job.
More than the name suggests. Depth, ramp control, soak time, the temper, the surface technologies, and the record — the full process is laid out step by step here. Two quotes for “cryogenic treatment” can describe two very different amounts of it.
Send us the part and how it fails. You'll get a straight answer on what the process will do for it — and a quote for exactly that.