The Best Printer Isn't the Cheapest One: A Quality Inspector's Take on Lexmark

My position is simple: the lowest upfront price is rarely the lowest total cost. I say that after four years as a quality and brand compliance manager for an office technology company. I review 200+ unique items every year—printers, cartridges, binders, all of it. In Q1 2024, I rejected 12% of first deliveries because specs were off, packaging was damaged, or the vendor and I had interpreted the same sentence differently. (Should mention: some of those were my own purchasing requests, so I'm not blaming strangers.)

I also keep a simple AFT calculator—acquisition cost, freight, and turnover—on a spreadsheet. It's not fancy. It's just a way to force myself to look beyond the sticker price. I want to say it took me an afternoon to build, but don't quote me on that. The calculator is the reason I've recommended keeping some aging equipment instead of replacing it, and the reason I've pushed for pricier equipment when the math made sense.

Why a Lexmark B2338dw Beat the Old Lexmark Printer

A few months ago, I helped a customer decide between a Lexmark B2338dw monochrome laser printer and an old Lexmark printer that had been sitting in their supply closet for years. The old unit wasn't broken. It just wasn't secure enough for their new client work, and the toner was getting harder to source.

I went back and forth between the two for two weeks. The B2338dw offered a warranty, modern security features, and high-yield cartridges. The old printer offered a familiar workflow and no capital expense. On paper, the old unit made sense. But my gut said we'd be back in six months with a maintenance emergency. The upside of keeping the old printer was avoiding a capital purchase. The risk was downtime and a damaged client relationship. I kept asking myself: is that worth the $0 price tag? So I ran the numbers.

Here's what the AFT calculator showed: the old printer's price was $0, but its average cost per page over the next three years was nearly double the B2338dw. The old unit wasn't bad. It was just obsolete in the wrong ways. (Not that 'obsolete' matters to every office—it does to a quality inspector who has seen a failed fuser ruin a run of 8,000 labels.)

What the AFT Calculator Actually Measures

AFT stands for acquisition, freight, and turnover. I made that up because I needed a shortcut. If you prefer 'total cost of ownership,' use that. The labels don't matter.

For any piece of office equipment, the real calculation includes:

• Acquisition price (including setup fees and accessories)
• Freight, especially if you're shipping a 3 ring binder or a heavy printer
• Turnover: how often you reorder supplies, replace parts, or restart a project because the tool failed

The hidden costs are almost always in the third bucket. A $200 savings on the purchase order becomes a $1,500 problem when the machine fails during a deadline. I've seen that exact pattern more times than I'd like to count.

When I implemented our verification protocol in 2022, the defect rate dropped by 34% in two quarters. That was not because I got smarter. It was because the specs had to be written down before the purchase order went out.

What Is the Best 3D Printer? You're Asking the Wrong Question

Around here, someone asks 'what is the best 3d printer?' at least once a month. My answer is always the same: it depends on what you're producing, and 'best' means nothing without a cost-per-good-part calculation.

A cheap 3D printer can be the right answer if you need a low volume of low-stakes parts. An expensive one is also the right answer if a failed print costs you a client deadline. I've seen both. (Side comment: a bad print from a high-end machine is just a more expensive failure.) I've also watched a 3D printer make replacement parts that kept an old machine running for another year. That kind of practical value does not show up in a product photo.

The same logic applies to regular printing. If someone asks me whether the Lexmark B2338dw is a good monochrome laser printer, I say yes. But I do not know if it's the right printer for you until I know your volume, your page sizes, your security requirements, and your tolerance for downtime.

Even a 3 Ring Binder Has Hidden Specs

Let me give you a smaller example, because it's the kind of thing that drives me crazy. A 3 ring binder seems simple: it holds paper, you snap the rings, done. But from a purchasing perspective, it has specs—ring spacing, spine width, cover gauge, even the distance between the punch holes on the inside cover.

Earlier this year, I rejected a batch of 500 binders because the rings didn't align with the cover pockets. The vendor said the misalignment was 'within industry standard.' I reminded them that our contract defined the standard. They redid the batch at their cost. (Surprise, surprise.) A quality issue like that could have cost us a $22,000 redo if I hadn't caught it before shipping to customers.

The most frustrating part of procurement: the same spec issues keep appearing despite clear written descriptions. You'd think a contract would prevent the arguments, but interpretations vary wildly.

And shipping is another hidden cost. USPS has clear dimensional rules: a letter can be no more than 0.25 inches thick, and a large envelope no more than 0.75 inches (usps.com/businessmail101). A 3 ring binder will not fit either of those, so you're paying package rates. If an online quote treats it like a flat envelope, your 'savings' will disappear.

The Boring Anchors That Save You Money

I try to cite policy when I can, because it forces both sides to stop talking in opinions. Per FTC Green Guides (ftc.gov/green-guides), a claim like 'recyclable' must be substantiated, and it should reflect real access to recycling facilities in areas where at least 60% of consumers live. If a toner cartridge supplier says 'recyclable' without telling you where and how, that's a red flag.

According to USPS pricing effective January 2025: First-Class Mail letter (1 oz): $0.73. First-Class Mail large envelope (1 oz): $1.50. Source: usps.com/stamps

Those numbers matter more than you'd think when you're comparing delivery quotes for printed materials or small office supplies. You don't have to memorize any of this. But I've learned to check the source before I trust the claim.

But What if You Only Print 20 Pages a Month?

Here's the objection I get: 'Maybe the cheapest option is fine if I barely use it.' Sometimes that's true. If your annual output is tiny and a failure costs almost nothing, a low-cost printer can be rational.

I'm not saying you must buy the most expensive machine. I'm saying you should run a quick calculation. A monochrome laser printer like the B2338dw might seem expensive compared to a consumer inkjet, but if you use high-yield toner and keep the machine for five years, the total cost can be dramatically lower. The old Lexmark printer in the closet might also be the right choice if parts and toner are still available and your security requirements are low.

The mistake is refusing to run the numbers at all. That's the argument I keep making: the cheapest price is only a good deal if no other costs come looking for you later.

So here's my position, stated without hedging: price is a fact, but cost is a choice. The best printer is not whichever one has the lowest sticker price. It's the one whose total cost fits your actual situation—whether that's a Lexmark B2338dw, an old Lexmark printer you already own, a 3 ring binder with the right ring spacing, or a 3D printer that produces parts you can actually use.

I do not care what label you put on the calculator. Use a napkin, a spreadsheet, or an AFT calculator. Just check the freight, check the turnover, and check the sources. Your future self—and your budget—will thank you.