Sachet vs Stick Pack Packaging: Cost, Materials & Efficiency

Choosing the wrong format for single-serve packaging can lead to higher costs, lower output, and unhappy consumers. But with the right data, the choice becomes clear.

Stick packs use up to 25% less film than sachets and often integrate better with existing machinery, making them more efficient and sustainable for many powder-based applications¹.

As someone who’s worked with food and nutraceutical brands across North America and Europe, I’ve seen how packaging decisions impact everything—from material use to user satisfaction². In this article, I’ll walk you through a practical, side-by-side comparison of sachets and stick packs, helping you choose the right format for your product and production lines³.

Stick packs can reduce film usage by up to 25% and often integrate more easily with existing packaging lines, offering a higher ROI when pourability⁴ and sustainability are prioritized.

Material Usage and Sustainability

Excessive packaging not only drives up costs—it also creates compliance risks and environmental backlash. Sustainable design starts with material efficiency⁵.

Stick packs⁶ consume less material than sachets⁷ and offer better recyclability⁸ in many applications, giving them an edge in eco-conscious markets.

Film consumption: How stick packs can reduce material by up to 25%

Stick packs are engineered to be narrower and longer, allowing for more efficient die cuts on rollstock film. Compared to flat sachets, which typically require more surface area for the same volume, stick packs can reduce film usage by 20–25%.

Here’s a quick film area comparison for a 5g powder dose:

Format	Typical Dimensions (mm)	Film Area (cm²)
Sachet	80 x 70	112
Stick Pack	100 x 30	60

That reduction not only saves material cost but also decreases shipping weight and carbon footprint across the supply chain⁹.

Comparative environmental impact and recyclability

Stick packs⁶ often use mono-material or downgauged laminates that are easier to recycle, especially in Europe and Canada, where flexible packaging recycling infrastructure is growing.

While traditional sachets may use multi-layer films¹⁰ with aluminum or PET, newer stick pack films can achieve sufficient barrier performance with LDPE or PP-based structures, improving recyclability without compromising shelf life.

Some benefits include:

• Lower CO₂ emissions across lifecycle
• Easier sorting in recycling streams
• Less post-consumer waste by volume

Compliance with current and upcoming eco-regulations

Many countries are tightening packaging waste regulations. The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and Canada’s plastics ban are pushing brands to reduce non-recyclable formats.

Switching to stick packs can help you:

• Preempt regulatory fines or redesign costs
• Meet Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) targets
• Qualify for sustainability certifications¹¹ like How2Recycle or EcoCert

I’ve helped clients proactively shift to compliant stick pack films that not only meet but exceed upcoming mandates.

Packaging Machinery Compatibility

Changing formats can disrupt operations—unless you choose a format that works on your existing equipment or requires minimal upgrades.

Stick packs can often run on modified VFFS¹² or HFFS¹³ lines, with higher speed and lower downtime once optimized.

Can stick packs run on existing VFFS or HFFS lines?

Yes, in many cases. If your current vertical form-fill-seal (VFFS) or horizontal form-fill-seal (HFFS) machine handles narrow web widths, it’s often possible to retrofit it for stick pack production.

Some older machines may require:

• Narrower forming tubes
• Stick pack-specific cutting dies
• Minor software adjustments

I’ve seen companies repurpose sachet lines for stick packs with minimal downtime—especially when working with modular equipment.

Adaptability and retrofitting considerations

Before switching, evaluate:

• Maximum web width and draw length
• Seal jaw compatibility
• Dosing system for powders

Modern stick pack lines are designed with modularity in mind, making it easier to switch between formats. Some suppliers even offer dual-format machines, giving you flexibility without investing in a second line.

Upfront retrofitting might cost $10,000–$30,000, but the savings in material and speed typically offset this within months.

Speed and uptime comparison between formats

Stick pack machines often outperform sachet lines in terms of output per lane. Here’s a rough comparison:

Format	Output Per Lane	Common Lane Count	Max Output (packs/min)
Sachet	40–60 ppm	2–4	~160–240
Stick Pack	60–80 ppm	4–10	~240–800

Stick pack lines not only produce more units per minute, but also experience fewer jams due to simplified web handling, especially with narrower film paths.

Consumer Experience and Pourability

Even the best-packaged product can fail if users can’t open or use it easily. Poor dispensing leads to messes, waste, and negative reviews.

Stick packs offer cleaner pouring, easier opening, and stronger consumer preference in powder-based use cases.

Ease of opening and dispensing: stick pack vs sachet

Stick packs are typically scored for easy tearing along the top edge, producing a narrow spout that directs powder flow. Sachets, in contrast, often tear unevenly, increasing the chance of spills.

Stick packs also:

• Require less force to open
• Tear along a single axis
• Minimize powder dust during dispensing

This makes them ideal for on-the-go consumption—think protein powders, electrolyte mixes, or instant coffee.

Powder flow control and spillage rates

My clients report up to 40% fewer consumer complaints about spillage when switching from sachets to stick packs. The narrow aperture of stick packs offers better control, especially for fine or hygroscopic powders.

A side-by-side test we ran for a nutraceutical brand showed:

• Sachets: 12% spillage rate in user trial
• Stick Packs: 3% spillage rate

That difference directly impacts brand perception and repeat purchases.

End-user preferences in food and nutraceutical markets

In surveys and focus groups we’ve conducted with end users in Europe and North America, stick packs consistently score higher on:

• Convenience
• Cleanliness
• Portion accuracy

For products like collagen peptides, vitamin C powders, and flavored drink mixes, consumers prefer stick packs for their ergonomic design¹⁴ and portability.

Cost Efficiency and ROI Analysis

Packaging is one of the biggest non-product costs. The right format should lower unit costs and increase throughput without sacrificing performance.

Stick packs offer lower material and labor costs, faster production, and better long-term ROI in high-volume operations.

Direct material and production cost comparison

Because stick packs use less film, they reduce material costs by 10–25% per unit. Here’s a basic cost breakdown per 1,000 units (5g powder):

Item	Sachet	Stick Pack
Film Cost	$12–$15	$8–$10
Filling Labor	$6–$8	$4–$5
Total	~$20–$23	~$12–$15

That difference adds up fast in large-scale production.

Labor and throughput implications

Stick pack machines often run faster and require fewer operators per shift. And because they jam less frequently, you save on:

• Downtime
• Maintenance costs
• QC rejections

One client who switched to stick packs reduced labor costs by 18% and increased daily output by 35%.

ROI modeling for switching to stick packs

Let’s say you’re producing 1 million units monthly:

• Material savings: ~$6,000/month
• Labor savings: ~$2,000/month
• Total annual savings: ~$96,000

Even with a $50,000 retrofit investment, your payback period is well under 7 months. I’ve helped several brands build these ROI models as part of their format transition strategy.

Use Case Scenarios and Format Recommendations

Choosing the right format depends on your product characteristics, brand positioning, and operational goals.

Sachets work better for complex fills or viscous products, while stick packs shine for dry powders with sustainability and convenience goals.

When to choose sachets: high-viscosity or multi-compartment needs

Sachets are still the better choice if:

• Your product is semi-liquid or gel
• You need dual-chamber or multi-dose formats
• Branding requires a larger printable area

For example, single-serve honey or dual-action cold medications are often better suited to sachets due to fill and seal requirements.

When stick packs are optimal: pourability⁴ and sustainability priorities

Stick packs⁶ are ideal for:

• Dry powders (vitamins, electrolytes, coffee)
• On-the-go use cases
• Brands targeting sustainability claims

If your goal is to improve consumer convenience and reduce packaging waste, stick packs deliver on both fronts.

Industry-specific examples across food and nutraceutical applications

Here’s what I’ve seen in practice:

Industry	Preferred Format	Example Products
Nutraceuticals	Stick Pack	Collagen peptides, vitamin powders
Sports Nutrition	Stick Pack	Pre-workout, BCAA, creatine
Food & Beverage	Both	Sugar, salt, instant coffee
Pharma	Sachet	Cough granules, probiotics (dual fill)

Many brands now co-pack both formats to meet different retail and channel needs.

---

Stick pack and sachet formats each offer distinct advantages depending on your product, machinery, and sustainability goals. If you’re evaluating a packaging transition or want to see material savings firsthand, request a sample pack today and consult with our engineering team to determine the best-fit format for your operations.

---