Faro vs. Traditional CMM: A Buyer's Guide from Someone Who Approves the Purchase

Why I compared Faro products against a traditional CMM

When our quality manager asked me to buy a CMM Faro arm in 2024, I had to put together a business case. I'm the office administrator for a 48-person manufacturing company. I handle approximately $280,000 in annual industrial purchasing across 11 vendors, and I report to both operations and finance. I don't design parts or interpret GD&T. My job is to make sure the quote is real, the invoice matches, and the equipment earns its place on the shop floor.

After a lot of quoting, site visits, and arguments with our CFO, I realized the real question wasn't Faro vs. traditional CMM. It's which one fits our mix of work. If you're a buyer or an operations manager wrestling with the same decision, here's how I thought it through.

The comparison framework I used

To keep this fair, I compared three things: setup flexibility, accuracy under real conditions, and three-year total cost. I also asked our lead inspector to test both options on our three most common part families. We looked at a fixed bridge CMM and a portable Faro arm with a laser scanner option.

One honest disclaimer: I am not a metrology engineer. I can't speak to the software algorithm details or volumetric compensation mathematics. What I can tell you is what matters from an administrative buyer's perspective: what the equipment requires, what it costs to keep running, and how it affects the people who use it.

Dimension 1: Setup and flexibility

The fixed CMM stays in its lane

The traditional CMM we evaluated is accurate, repeatable, and essentially bolted to a temperature-controlled lab floor. That's exactly what you want for repetitive inspection of the same part. It is not useful for a weld fixture that moved to the assembly line at 4:00 p.m. The part either comes to the CMM, or it doesn't get measured that day.

The Faro arm goes where the work is

The CMM Faro arm we tested rolled out of its case and was measuring within about 30 minutes. Because it uses a magnetic base, we could mount it to a surface plate, a machine table, or almost any stable steel surface. Our quality lead used it on the shop floor, in the metrology room, and later at a supplier's plant during an audit. That portability is the main reason people start searching for Faro products in the first place.

Contrast conclusion: If your parts move between locations, or if any part is too large to fit through a lab door, the Faro arm wins on setup. If you only measure small parts in one controlled room, the fixed CMM is simpler because you never have to unpack it.

Dimension 2: Accuracy and calibration

I expected the fixed CMM to crush the portable arm on accuracy. In the lab, that was true: the fixed bridge unit we looked at had a volumetric accuracy spec around 2.5 + L/300 µm, while the Faro arm was roughly ±0.025 mm depending on model and position (based on Faro published specs as of January 2025; verify current specifications at faro.com). For our tolerances—typically ±0.05 mm—both were more than adequate.

Here's the surprise. We got better day-to-day results with the Faro arm than with the lab CMM for large or awkward parts. Why? Because we could bring the arm to the part instead of trying to clamp the part to a fixture. A 1.2-meter welded frame still fit in the arm's measuring volume, but it would have barely squeezed into the lab CMM's envelope. That changed the practical accuracy more than the spec sheet did.

To be fair, environmental temperature matters. On a hot afternoon, the shop floor was 10°C warmer than the metrology lab. The arm's readings shifted a little (we compensated by keeping the arm shaded for a few minutes). The fixed CMM doesn't have that problem because the room is controlled. So if you need ultra-stable micro-measurement, the traditional CMM is still the right answer.

Contrast conclusion: For typical machine-shop tolerances, the Faro arm is accurate enough and more useful. For micro-metric precision on very small, temperature-sensitive parts, the fixed CMM remains the standard.

Dimension 3: Three-year total cost of ownership

This is where I had to do the administrative math. The fixed CMM quote was $86,500 including basic installation. The Faro arm package—with carbon-fiber tube, laser scanner, and workstation—came in at $78,200 (quotes from an authorized Faro distributor and a CMM integrator, January 2025; verify current pricing). Both needed a yearly calibration and inspection, which I budgeted at roughly $1,200 to $1,800. Neither is a buy it once and forget it product.

I don't have hard data on how quickly a portable arm drifts in normal use. What I can say anecdotally is that our periodic calibration after six months found only a minor deviation, and the service tech said it was within spec. The fixed CMM had a longer PM interval but it also required more careful environmental control.

Then there were the soft costs. We didn't have a formal calibration tracking process when we bought the arm. That was a mistake. The first reminder slipped, and we paid a rush fee to get the calibration scheduled before a customer audit. (Note to self: never let an annual calibration date live in one person's email again.) In 2024, I put all PM dates into our ERP system with 60-day alerts. That one change made the single greatest difference in keeping both instruments compliant.

Contrast conclusion: If you measure the same fixture every day in one location, the fixed CMM tends to have lower total cost after three years because you don't pay for portability you don't need. If your work happens in multiple locations, the Faro arm's flexibility typically pays for itself in saved setup time and customer-onsite credibility.

Before you ask: how much is a Flir thermal camera?

One thing I've learned across all Faro products and other instruments: the same decision framework applies. People in our office ask how much a Flir thermal camera costs or whether they should buy a cheap multimeter test leads kit or the expensive one. I try to steer them back to one question: what do you need to measure, and where?

The maintenance team bought a thermal camera after comparing models—not because Flir was the most expensive option, but because the model they chose had the right temperature range and report software for our electrical panel audits. Prices ranged from about $250 for a basic unit to several thousand dollars for a research-grade model (based on manufacturer listings, January 2025; verify current pricing at flir.com). Similarly, we bought water meters for a facility project based on flow range and pulse output, not just brand. And honestly, for a quick electrical continuity check, a decent quality multimeter test leads kit is enough; you don't need a $10,000 bench unit.

This mindset also applies to Faro. Not every measurement job needs a laser tracker or a portable arm. But when the job demands high-accuracy geometric inspection, a Faro product can be a better investment than paying an outside lab to do the same work repeatedly.

So which one should you choose?

If I had to wrap this up as a buyer's guide, I'd say:

• Choose the traditional fixed CMM if you have a dedicated metrology lab, a steady flow of small-to-medium parts, and tight temperature-controlled tolerances.
• Choose a Faro arm or Faro laser tracker if your parts are large, your team works in multiple areas, or you measure at customer sites. The portability is not a nice-to-have; it changes what you can inspect at all.
• Don't assume the more expensive tool is the right one. The right precision tool is the one that fits the workpiece, the environment, and your actual tolerances.

In our case, the Faro arm made sense because we do a mix of first-article inspections, weld fixture checks, and customer-site measurements. It also made us look sharper in front of clients. When a customer saw us bring a portable arm onto their floor and produce an inspection report in 20 minutes, the confidence effect was real. That's the part that doesn't show up in the quote, but it's the reason quality perception matters.

Before you approve a purchase, get a clean quote, verify the calibration support, and set the PM reminder first. Then decide based on where your work actually happens, not just the spec sheet.