Flexible Packaging Versus Traditional Food Packaging: Complete Comparison

How pouches stack up against rigid plastics, glass jars, metal cans, and paperboard for food brands.

Introduction

Flexible packaging is growing rapidly in food, but traditional options remain relevant. This page compares cost, performance, sustainability, and perception—then links back to the complete food packaging guide for next steps.

Where Flexible Shines vs. Others

Rigid Plastics: Often up to 85% less plastic by weight, lowering material and freight.
Glass: Pouches are lighter and shatter-resistant; glass signals premium but is heavy.
Cans: Cans excel at long storage; pouches add resealability and convenience.
Paperboard: Cartons recycle widely; pouches deliver better moisture/oxygen barriers.

Cost & Logistics

Lower freight costs versus heavy glass and metal.
Reduced warehouse space due to compact forms.
Equipment needs: sealing is required for pouches; plan CAPEX or use copackers.

Considerations

Perception tradeoffs in premium categories—design can bridge the gap.
Developing recycling pathways for flexible formats vs. paperboard’s ubiquity.
Right-size barriers and validate seals for food safety.

Want a side-by-side for your exact food product?

ESTIMATE MY PROJECT COST

Or start with the broader food packaging guide.