Faro Support & Cost: What a Procurement Manager Wants You to Know About Laser Trackers and CMM Arms

Faro equipment is an investment. Let's talk about the costs that matter.

I manage procurement for a mid-sized aerospace supplier. Over the past six years, I've tracked every invoice, every support contract, and every calibration expense tied to our Faro systems. The total? Somewhere north of $180,000. I've made good calls and bad ones. Here's what I wish someone had told me when I was first comparing quotes.

These questions are the ones I hear most from engineers and lab managers—plus a few I’ve learned to ask the hard way.

1. What does Faro support actually cost—and what do you get for it?

People see the price tag on a Faro laser tracker and think the support contract is just an upsell. But in my experience, that's a dangerous assumption. For our Faro Vantage, the annual support package runs about 12-15% of the unit price. That covers priority technical support, firmware updates, and—crucially—loaner units if your system goes down.

Here's the thing: calibration alone, if you send it out-of-warranty, can cost you $2,000-$4,000 depending on the model. The support contract bundles that. In Q2 last year, we had a tracker drift issue. With support, the loaner was overnight. Without it, I'd have been looking at two weeks of downtime plus a $3,000 repair bill. So the question isn't 'can I skip support?' It's 'can I afford not to have it?'

2. Is a Faro laser tracker actually cheaper than a traditional fixed CMM in the long run?

That depends on what you're measuring. For parts that fit on a fixed CMM table, the fixed CMM wins on pure throughput. But this is where Faro's tech changes things—or rather, where the cost model shifts.

We use our Faro Vantage for parts that are too large or too complex to move. Think aircraft wing sections, jigs, and assembly tooling. The upfront cost of the tracker is high—$60k-$100k depending on configuration. But I've compared it against the cost of building a dedicated fixed CMM cell for those big parts. That would have been $150k minimum, plus a foundation, plus a longer installation timeline.

In our case, the portable tracker paid for itself in about 18 months. But your mileage may vary. If you're measuring small, repetitive parts, a fixed CMM is probably a better investment. Faro’s advantage is flexibility, not raw speed on simple geometries.

3. I see 'Faro guide' and 'Faro support' searches. What’s the best way to get help without burning budget?

Look, I’m a fan of using the official channels. But I’ve saved a lot by using Faro’s knowledge base and user forums for basic troubleshooting. Their customer portal (the support.faro.com site) has decent documentation on alignment, calibration checks, and common error codes. I can often solve a problem in 30 minutes that would have cost a $250 service call.

But for serious issues—like a laser that’s not tracking or a probe error—the support contract is the only way to go. I learned that the hard way when I tried to diagnose a tracker that was giving inconsistent readings. Spent a day, went down a rabbit hole, and finally called support. The root cause? A misaligned retroreflector. Fixed in ten minutes by phone. The lesson: use self-help for routine stuff, but know when to call in the experts.

4. Your keywords include '112 multimeter' and 'hplc column'. How do those relate to Faro? Should I combine budgets?

That's a smart question, actually. They don't—at least not directly. A multimeter or an HPLC column is a department-level consumable. A Faro tracker is a capital asset. Mixing them up in budgeting is a classic procurement mistake. I've seen labs try to shave pennies on calibration standards and then balk at a $60,00 laser tracker quote. Different tools, different budgets, different ROI horizons.

If your facility is investing in precision measurement, treat the Faro system as a strategic purchase. The support contract and calibration schedule are operational expenses. Don't let the 'small stuff' like a cheap multimeter's calibration distract from the big picture. That said—make sure your people know how to test a capacitor with that Fluke (I'll get to that below). But that's a maintenance question, not a metrology capital question.

5. I'm a mid-size shop. Can I afford a Faro CMM arm instead of a laser tracker?

This is a common fork in the road. A FaroArm (the portable CMM arm) starts around $25k-40k, depending on length and accuracy. A laser tracker is $60k+. If you measure parts within a 2-meter envelope, the arm is usually the right tool. Ours gets used daily for inspection of machined parts, and we get a lot of value out of it.

But if you need to measure something larger—like an automotive body panel or a wind turbine blade—the arm won’t reach. That’s where the tracker shines. In my experience, if you're planning to use it for large-scale assembly alignment or for parts over, say, 3 meters, skip the arm and go straight to the tracker. You'll pay more upfront but you’ll avoid the 'I need the tracker anyway' moment later.

6. I know how to test a capacitor with a fluke multimeter. Should I trust my maintenance team with Faro calibration checks?

Short answer: no. A Fluke multimeter is great for voltage checks and continuity. But for a Faro tracker, we use a built-in self-check routine and a reference bar that is calibrated annually. I wouldn't let a technician 'eyeball' the laser alignment any more than I’d trust them to calibrate an HPLC column by sight.

That said, routine cleanliness checks—making sure the laser window is clean, the tripod is stable, and the environment is temperature-stable—that's basic good practice. But the real calibration? Leave that to Faro's certified techs (or a third-party ISO 17025 lab). It’s not about skill; it’s about traceability. If your customer asks for calibration data, it needs to come from a certified source.

7. The elephant in the room: I found a cheaper 'faro support' option. Should I take it?

If someone offers you a third-party support contract for half the price of Faro’s official support—proceed with caution. I’ve been burned on this. We tried a 'discount' calibration service once. They said they were 'Faro-trained'. They weren't. The calibration report looked fine, but our part rejection rate went up. I spent more time and money re-calibrating than I saved.

Here's my policy now: for the laser tracker and the FaroArm, we only use Faro-direct support or a certified ISO 17025 partner that Faro lists. For accessories like cables or tripods? Maybe a cheaper source is okay. But for the core instrument? The risk of a bad calibration or a missed lob error just isn't worth it. An informed customer is a better customer—and I'd rather pay the full price for a known good than gamble on a discount that costs me more in rework later.