A Comparison of Fellowes and GBC Comb-Binding Machines

Binding machines are fast becoming a must-have for any small office that is looking to have more flexibility, convenience, and control when putting together its important documents, reports, presentations and proposals. One of the most simple, common and cheapest binding methods is comb binding. There are differences, however, in the different comb-binding machines and their capabilities. These differences may seem insignificant to the untrained eye. However, when it comes to binding machines, the slightest advantage can mean time and money saved.

Binding machines are fast becoming a must-have for any small office that is looking to have more flexibility, convenience, and control when putting together its important documents, reports, presentations and proposals. One of the most simple, common and cheapest binding methods is comb binding. For this reason, there are many machines available on the market that are designed for comb binding. There are differences, however, in the different comb-binding machines and their capabilities. These differences may seem insignificant to the untrained eye. However, when it comes to binding machines, the slightest advantage can mean time and money saved.

Here we will take a look at two of the major players on the market, Fellowes and GBC. Both companies have a solid line of binding equipment, but there are some differences that you might want to know about before you take the plunge and buy your own binding machine.

First of all, you will have to decide whether you want a manual or electric punch on your binding machine. Manual is a little bit less expensive, but electric is quicker and more accurate. All of the machines that we will discuss here are available with either manual or electric punch mechanisms. Here is a quick comparison of Fellowes and GBC's manual machines for the small office:

1. Fellowes Pulsar vs. GBC C110: Both of these machines feature a 15 punch/300 bind capability, and will run you about $230 (list price). The Pulsar gets the slightest nod here, however, because of the following advantages it provides:

• The Pulsar is built for vertical document loading, which ensures accurate punch alignment, and a rotary edge guide that accurately centers documents.
• The Pulsar features a much more compact and lightweight design. It even folds up for quick and easy storage, and won't take up much more room than a book on a bookshelf.
• While the Pulsar and C110 manual versions cost the same, the Fellowes electric machine is a bit less expensive than its GBC counterpart.
• The Pulsar comes with a two-year warranty, whereas the GBC provides only one year.

2. Fellowes Quasar and Quasar E vs. GBC's C210E. Again, Two very similar machines, with both featuring a 20-punch capability. Again, however the nod has to go to the Fellowes machines, due to the fact that they have a 500-bind capacity vs. the C210E's 300. The Quasar stores in a smaller space, and the warranty of two years just makes more sense, especially when you consider that the electric versions cost virtually the same.

Both of these companies are well known and respected in the binding industry for making highly reliable devices, and really, you can't go wrong with either one of these manufacturer's comb-binding machines. The advantages we've discussed here are fairly slight in the grand scheme of things, which is why we wanted to lay out the differences for you. Ultimately, you will need to compare the systems for yourself and make a decision about the machine that will best fit your particular needs.

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR