NOVA vs. Screen Printing — ROI for FHE Prototyping

Rapid prototyping in flexible hybrid electronics (FHE) demands tools that enable fast design iteration, novel material experimentation, and high design flexibility without the overhead of full-scale manufacturing. To maximize return on investment (ROI), it’s essential to choose an option that aligns with your specific prototyping needs.

Screen printing in electronics is a contact deposition process that uses either a mesh screen or a metal mask (a stencil with pre-etched apertures) to transfer ink onto a substrate. If you’re using a mesh screen, areas corresponding to the circuit pattern are left open while other areas are masked with an emulsion before printing.

During printing, a conductive or functional ink is poured onto the screen and a squeegee wipes across it, pushing ink through the open areas onto the substrate beneath it. The substrate is then heated or UV cured to solidify the ink or paste and ensure conductivity.

Screen printing supports a wide range of materials, such as conductive ink, dielectric ink, and solder paste. It can also print on a variety of flexible substrates, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide, textiles, and even paper or curved surfaces [1].

Voltera’s NOVA is a materials dispensing system that uses direct ink writing (DIW) to print flexible circuits layer by layer, without any screens or stencils. It dispenses functional inks and pastes through a nozzle, creating the desired pattern under digital control.

In practice, the user loads a syringe of the chosen material, mounts the substrate on the print bed (a vacuum table that holds flexible films flat), and uploads a digital design — Gerber file or SVG (beta) — for the machine to print. Like screen printing, the pattern must then be cured to become conductive.

The materials NOVA can dispense largely overlap with screen-printable materials, as do the compatible substrates. However, in a prototyping environment, these two methods differ significantly in terms of ROI and overall agility.

For engineers working on FHE devices, many start by outsourcing their designs overseas. A simple design can often be completed and shipped within a week. Driven by affordability, some may consider investing in a screen printer for in-house development. But does screen printing make the best economic sense for your prototyping needs? For the sake of a fair comparison, this blog assumes each iteration involves 10 prints and discusses a scenario in which the hardware team performs 100 iterations within a certain timeframe.

In a 2025 study, researchers compared the material use and cost savings of screen printing versus Voltera’s technology. They printed gold ink on top of silver conductive ink to make biosensors using both technologies and extrapolated the numbers to 1,000 prints for comparison. The result showed an 82 wt% reduction when using Voltera’s other direct ink writing printer, V-One.

The cost associated with screen printing goes beyond material waste. The bulk of the price consists of the stencils used for soldering and applying other functional materials. With each design tweak, whether it’s a size change, a new layer stackup, or a new material, the stencil has to be remade. The more iterations involved, the more costs will ramp up. Based on one estimate, the stencil price varies between $109 and $362 USD. Depending on design complexity, 100 iterations would cost the team between $109,000 and $362,000 USD with screen printing, while with NOVA, this cost is zero.

As with any manual process, one hidden cost is manual labour. This involves the time spent operating and monitoring the machine, as well as the time spent coordinating communication with stencil manufacturers and managing the logistics around getting the stencils up and running. With screen printing, the manual labour is higher than with NOVA, which automates most of the process. The median hourly rate for mechanical engineers in the US in 2024 was $50/hour, and assuming NOVA saves an hour of labour with each print, 100 iterations would save the team $25,000.

To summarize the ROI implications: NOVA incurs a higher one-time equipment cost, but lower variable costs per iteration, whereas screen printing requires lower-cost tools, but higher recurring costs for each design (screens, waste, labor). The total cost per prototype (including ink, labor, overhead) tends to be much lower with NOVA for small quantities. However, the breakeven point will tilt toward screen printing as volumes increase: once the design is finalized and will be produced en masse, screen printing yields a lower unit cost.

It should be noted that NOVA and screen printing are complementary, rather than strictly competing in the overall development pipeline. NOVA fills the prototyping and innovation gap, empowering rapid design cycles and material innovation without worrying about production logistics. Screen printing then takes over for manufacturing scale-up, offering low unit costs for large runs. As NOVA is compatible with most-screen printing materials (1,000-1,000,000 cP in viscosity), teams using NOVA for prototyping can seamlessly scale into production. This way designers get the best of both — agility upfront, efficiency later.

Interested in learning more about NOVA and screen printing? Check out these resources:

• Blog: Introduction to Screen Printing
• Blog: Screen Printing vs. Direct Ink Writing for Printed Electronics
• Webinar: Printing Multilayer Flexible And Stretchable Circuits

Want to explore how to develop novel materials and prototype flexible hybrid electronics with high ROI? Book a meeting to speak with one of our technical representatives.

[1] Wiklund, J., Karakoç, A., Palko, T., Yiğitler, H., Ruttik, K., Jäntti, R., & Paltakari, J. (2021). A Review on Printed Electronics: Fabrication Methods, Inks, Substrates, Applications and Environmental Impacts. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 5(3), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp5030089.

[2] Stobo, A.-M., Izquierdo-Bote, D., Bernard, L., Hampton, K., Wolfe, N., Parker, A., García, M. B. G., Villasuso, I. Z., Stockill, B., Ioannidis, R. O., Bikiaris, N. D., Robinson, P., Richardson, S., Maxfield, J., Gill, L., Peavoy, G., Moliner, E., & Lamming, G. (2026). Closing the Loop: Sustainable and Cost-Effective Glucose Biosensors Through a Circular and Digital Design. Electronics, 15(4), 796. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics15040796.