SAM

~$400-600M US and European mid-market precision casting operations

SOM

~$15-30M

TAM

~40k global foundries and secondary metal producers × ~$30k/yr software allocation ≈ ~$1.2B

Growth Rate

~8-12%/yr, driven by volatile raw material costs and the accelerating retirement of experienced foundry metallurgists

Paid Comparable Spend

~$40k-80k/yr per facility in senior metallurgist labor for manual charge calculation and wasted over-spec ferroalloy additions

Kill Thresholds

• Manual override rate > 40% after 30 days
• Less than $3,000 in demonstrated monthly ferroalloy savings per facility
• OES data ingestion failure rate > 15%
• D30 account retention < 50% for pilot facilities

Leading Metrics

• Time-to-first-charge-calculation
• Optical emission spectrometer data ingestion success rate
• Daily active melt deck operators per facility
• Percentage of alloy corrections accepted without manual override
• Ferroalloy material savings per melt cycle

What Proves Right

Metallurgists at precision casting operations replace manual Excel solvers with the platform for daily charge calculations. Foundries pay $2,500 per month per facility because the software consistently reduces over-spec ferroalloy additions. Day-30 retention remains above 80% as operators integrate the tool directly into their melt deck workflow.

What Proves Wrong

Foundries refuse to trust the algorithmic charge calculations over their experienced metallurgists. The software fails to parse raw data from existing optical emission spectrometers, forcing manual data entry that operators abandon within the first week. Cost savings from reduced ferroalloy usage fail to exceed the software subscription price.