Scrap Rate is a critical performance indicator that reflects operational efficiency and cost control in manufacturing processes.
High scrap rates can indicate inefficiencies, leading to increased production costs and reduced profitability.
Conversely, low scrap rates suggest effective processes and quality control, contributing to improved financial health.
Organizations that monitor this KPI can better align their production strategies with business outcomes, enhancing overall ROI.
By tracking scrap rates, companies can identify areas for improvement and implement data-driven decisions to optimize their operations.
This metric serves as a leading indicator of production effectiveness and financial performance.
Scrap Rate is one of the most connected metrics in the library, appearing in twenty-one of KPI Depot's KPI groups. Its home is the Manufacturing KPI group, where it ranks fourth among the core efficiency metrics Overall Equipment Effectiveness, First-Pass Yield, and Yield. It sits high in the other production KPI groups too, which marks it as a primary efficiency outcome, not a footnote.
Its balanced scorecard perspective is internal process, and it measures the material lost to discard rather than redone. That makes it the companion of Yield and First-Pass Yield, which describe the same process from the side of what came out right. The tension is with throughput and speed: running faster or pushing a marginal process can lift scrap, while driving scrap down may slow a line if it means tightening setup and inspection. Read Scrap Rate with First-Pass Yield and Yield, because scrap is only one of the two ways output goes wrong, and a low scrap rate achieved by reworking instead of discarding is not the same as a process that simply runs clean.
The formula is units scrapped over units produced, and the first job is to separate scrap from its neighbors.
Scrap is material discarded; rework is material saved by redoing it. A rate that quietly blends the two hides whether the process is losing material or just reprocessing it, and the cost-based scrap measures common in industry mix them deliberately. If you keep the unit-based formula here, hold it apart from any cost-of-scrap figure, which answers a different question about how expensive the loss was rather than how often it happened. Decide too whether startup and setup scrap, which is often unavoidable, is counted with production scrap or tracked on its own.
Watch the denominator and the boundary. Units produced should be defined consistently, and material scrapped at incoming inspection is a supplier story, not a production one, so keep those separate. Segment by line, product, and defect cause, since scrap usually concentrates in a few of each, and read the rate with First-Pass Yield and Yield so the full picture of process loss is visible rather than just one slice.
Many organizations overlook the impact of scrap rates on overall profitability, leading to missed opportunities for cost control and operational improvement.
Enhancing scrap rates requires a concerted effort to identify inefficiencies and implement targeted strategies.
We have 10 relevant benchmarks in our benchmarks database.
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | threshold | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | threshold | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | threshold | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentile | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 20 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentile | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 20 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | average | all companies | study year | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 20 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentile | all companies | 12 months | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 4,230 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentile | all companies | 12 months | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 1,008 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | median | all companies | 12 months | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 4,230 |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | median | all companies | 12 months | manufacturers | cross-industry | global | 1,008 |
Browse the Top Benchmarked KPIs in Manufacturing
Scrap Rate carries a definitional problem that the tracked sources make plain. They include APQC, OpsDog, and Shoplogix, and across them the metric is defined in at least two incompatible ways, sometimes as a count and sometimes as a cost.
The count version divides units scrapped by units produced. The cost version divides scrap and rework cost by cost of goods sold, or by sales revenue, which is a money-based ratio and not comparable to a unit count. The page formula here is the count version, units scrapped over units produced, so a cost-based scrap figure from one of these sources cannot be read across to it. Two further differences compound this: whether scrap and rework are counted together or separately, and whether the denominator is units, cost of goods sold, or revenue. The practical rule is to confirm whether a scrap benchmark is unit-based or cost-based, and what it divides by, before treating it as comparable, because the same factory can report very different scrap figures under these definitions.
In the Manufacturing KPI group, Scrap Rate ladders to the group's objective of ensuring product quality while minimizing material waste. It works as a key result there alongside First-Pass Yield and the equipment and throughput measures the KPI group leads with, with the team's direction being to cut waste while yield and output hold or rise.
The structural point is that scrap is laddered with the efficiency it protects. The objective does not ask for less scrap at any cost, since a line can cut scrap by slowing down; it asks for less waste while throughput and yield hold, which is why scrap sits next to First-Pass Yield and equipment effectiveness. Any specific scrap target a team sets is an internal goal against its own process and material, not a benchmark, and on this page it should stay on the unit-based definition the formula uses rather than a cost-based one.
This KPI is associated with the following categories and industries in our KPI database:
KPI Depot takes you from KPI intelligence to finished deliverable. Consultants, strategy teams, FP&A leaders, and analytics teams use it to answer the two hardest questions in performance management, what to measure and what the target should be, and then to produce the scorecard itself.
The difference is intelligence, not just data. Anyone can list metrics. Every KPI in KPI Depot carries 13 practical attributes, from formula and measurement approach to diagnostic questions, risk warnings, and Balanced Scorecard perspective, across 15 corporate functions and 153 industries. And every target you set is grounded in our database of 34,304 source-attributed benchmarks, each detailing metric value, company size, time period, industry, geography, sample size, and source. Benchmark data at this scale is otherwise the domain of research services costing thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
When your metrics are selected, KPI Depot finishes the job: export an interactive Strategy Map, a Balanced Scorecard with formulas and tracking columns, or a CSV KPI pack, and go from research to working deliverable in hours instead of weeks.
Formerly the Flevy KPI Library, KPI Depot is trusted by teams at organizations including Accenture, EY, IBM, PepsiCo, Samsung, and Vodafone.
Got a question? Email us at [email protected].
A good scrap rate typically falls below 5%, depending on the industry. However, world-class manufacturers often achieve rates below 2%, indicating exceptional operational efficiency.
High scrap rates directly increase production costs, reducing overall profitability. Lowering scrap rates can significantly enhance financial health by decreasing waste and improving resource utilization.
Manufacturing execution systems (MES) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) software are effective tools for tracking scrap rates. These systems provide real-time data and analytics, enabling organizations to monitor performance and identify areas for improvement.
Scrap rates should be reviewed regularly, ideally on a monthly basis. Frequent analysis allows organizations to quickly identify trends and implement corrective actions as needed.
Yes, employee engagement plays a crucial role in reducing scrap rates. When employees are trained and motivated to uphold quality standards, they are more likely to contribute to lower waste levels.
Technology, such as automation and data analytics, can significantly reduce scrap rates. Implementing advanced quality control measures helps identify defects early, minimizing waste during production.
Each KPI in our knowledge base includes 13 attributes.
A clear explanation of what the KPI measures
The typical business insights we expect to gain through the tracking of this KPI
An outline of the approach or process followed to measure this KPI
The standard formula organizations use to calculate this KPI
Insights into how the KPI tends to evolve over time and what trends could indicate positive or negative performance shifts
Questions to ask to better understand your current position is for the KPI and how it can improve
Practical, actionable tips for improving the KPI, which might involve operational changes, strategic shifts, or tactical actions
Recommended charts or graphs that best represent the trends and patterns around the KPI for more effective reporting and decision-making
Potential risks or warnings signs that could indicate underlying issues that require immediate attention
Suggested tools, technologies, and software that can help in tracking and analyzing the KPI more effectively
How the KPI can be integrated with other business systems and processes for holistic strategic performance management
Explanation of how changes in the KPI can impact other KPIs and what kind of changes can be expected
NEW Mapping to a Balanced Scorecard perspective (financial, customer, internal process, learning & growth)