How our prices compare

Below are 449 price comparisons across 88 products, against Vistaprint, Inkmonk, Kraftix and Printo. We were the cheapest in 180 of them — 40.1%. In the other 269 a competitor was cheaper, and those rows are published here too, because a comparison that only shows the wins is an advertisement.

Competitor prices were read from their own storefronts on 27 July 2026 and have not been re-read since. Printing prices move, so treat anything below as a record of that day rather than a quote for today. Ours are frozen to the same date for the same reason — comparing today’s price of ours against last month’s of theirs would flatter us for free. Our price list is regenerated hourly and is the authority on what we charge now.

Our own catalogue has changed since that date: 11 products compared here are no longer sold and have been removed, which took the figure from 43% down to 40.1% — they were disproportionately products we led on. The catalogue stood at 241 products when the comparison was captured and stands at 200 today.

What the numbers mean

• Every figure includes GST and excludes shipping. Sellers publish on different bases, so they were normalised: Inkmonk’s headline bundles delivery (₹95–₹482 by quantity) and it has been taken back out. Our standard delivery is free, which is a genuine advantage this comparison deliberately does not count.
• Inkmonk and Printo are one company. The Inkmonk footer reads “Printo Document Services Pvt. Ltd.” and its search runs on printo.in infrastructure, so treating them as two independent quotes would overstate how many sellers we are beating. They are counted as one group.
• Quantities are matched, not rounded to suit us. Where a seller publishes a slab at the exact quantity, that published price is used (1108 of 1157 cells). Where it does not, the price is interpolated between the two slabs either side and marked ^{† (interpolated)}. Nothing is extrapolated past the end of a published ladder; that cell is simply left blank.
• Some of our prices were originally seeded from Vistaprint. For those products a we-versus-Vistaprint delta would be measuring our own pricing script rather than the market, so the cell is marked ^{‡ (not independent)} and left out of the verdict.

Every figure is the total for that quantity, including GST and excluding shipping — not a per-unit rate. ^{† (interpolated)} interpolated between two published slabs, not a price the seller lists at that exact quantity. ^{‡ (not independent)} our price for this product was originally seeded from Vistaprint, so the pair is not independent and is excluded from the verdict. ^{* (minimum order is larger)} we sell that product in fixed steps, so the smallest order covering the compared quantity is larger — you would pay our figure but receive more than the quantity shown (110 rows). “—” means we have no verified like-for-like match, not that the seller has no such product. “+N%” is how much dearer we are than the cheapest verified rival in that row. “Cheapest of N” counts the independent sellers in that row including us, so cheapest of 2 is a win over one rival, not over the market — Inkmonk and Printo count once between them.

Method, and what it cannot tell you

Matching is the hard part of a comparison like this, and it is where these pages usually go wrong. A “business card” on two sites can differ in stock, lamination, corners and turnaround, and pairing them anyway produces a number that measures the specification rather than the seller. Of the pairings originally drawn up, 150 were rejected across 66 products and are not counted anywhere above.

Most of those were plainly wrong once checked — a baseball cap priced against a t-shirt, a ceramic mug against a disposable paper cup, an apparel item against the heat-transfer film you decorate a garment with. Those are safe to remove. The remaining 85 are not so clean. They were found by a rule that flags any pairing where our price exceeds a rival’s by more than three times, and while inspection showed each one really was a specialised product against a generic one, a filter keyed on price cannot be assumed neutral. It removed 40% of one budget seller’s pairings against 9% of another’s. Thirty of those products kept some rivals and lost others, so they are now compared against a narrower field than they started with.

Two further limits worth stating. This compares price only — not paper weight, colour accuracy, reprint policy or whether the job arrives on time, and on any given row the dearer seller may well be selling the better thing. And a seller’s absence from a row means we could not verify a match, not that they lack the product; drawing “they do not sell this” from a dash would be wrong.

Among the 269 rows where we are dearer, the median gap is 74.7%. Bulk stationery and short-run visiting cards are where we are least competitive, and the tables above are the honest place to see it.

Competitor prices captured 27 July 2026; comparison built 2026-08-01. Basis: goods, inclusive of GST, excluding shipping. Our live prices are on the price list, which is regenerated hourly and is the authority on what we charge today. If you believe a figure here is wrong or has moved, tell us and we will re-check it — corrections are the only way a page like this stays worth reading.