Treat a productivity headline as a hypothesis. Before changing tools, run a controlled comparison on the hole, material and machine that matter to your shop. Compare accepted holes, quality, tool life and total cost—not the number of cutting edges alone.
Close-up of the supplied replaceable drill head. This product-view clip does not show a cutting test or document machining results.
What a three-edge claim does—and does not—tell you
A three-edge design describes the cutting geometry. It does not, by itself, predict the cycle-time gain, tool life or hole quality you will get on a particular job. Also confirm what “three edges” means for the exact head: three effective cutting edges working together are not automatically three separate indexing positions.
Published performance figures are product- and application-specific. For example, ISCAR describes up to 50% higher productivity for its named QUICK-3-CHAM family compared with a common two-flute drill with exchangeable heads. That figure is a manufacturer claim for that product family and comparison; it is not a guaranteed result for another drill or a different application. Source: https://www.iscar.ma/en-ch-products/hole-making/drilling/quick-3-cham/quick-3-cham
Do not transfer deep-hole limits between designs either. ISCAR links drilling up to 12×D without a pilot hole to the concave HCP geometry in its SUMOCHAM line. Confirm the exact model, head geometry and manufacturer instructions before applying that limit to another tool. Source: https://www.iscar.co.il/products.aspx/countryid/14/productid/144
The supplied video calls the displayed head equivalent to an ISCAR design, but it does not identify a model or show a machining result. Ask for the supplier’s exact part number, compatibility details and application data before treating a visual resemblance as evidence of equivalent performance.
Set up a fair shop-floor comparison
1. Define one production question. Choose a real part and one measurable objective, such as reducing total time per accepted hole without leaving the drawing tolerance. Record the workpiece material and lot, hole diameter and depth, entry and exit conditions, required tolerance, machine, holder, coolant and current process.
Check that each drill body and head are compatible with the holder and spindle, and mount each tool according to its own instructions. Record overhang, runout, coolant delivery and the cutting data used. Do not force an identical feed or speed if it falls outside either tool’s recommended range; the purpose is to compare production results fairly, not to run a tool outside its limits.
2. Measure the current process first. Use the existing drill to establish a baseline under normal production conditions. Include the time spent on pecking, positioning, tool changes and routine interruptions that affect the job. Record the number of accepted holes, rejects or rework, tool life at a consistent end-of-life condition, and any quality measurements that matter for the part.
3. Run the candidate under the same application conditions. Repeat the job with the candidate head using its recommended cutting data. Keep the workpiece lot, machine, fixture, hole geometry, coolant and measurement method consistent. If you adjust a parameter during the trial, log the change and rerun enough parts to see whether the result repeats.
Use the same wear or failure rule for both tools—for example, the point at which a hole no longer meets the drawing or the edge reaches the shop’s agreed wear limit. That makes “holes per head” meaningful instead of dependent on when an operator decides to stop.
4. Compare production outcomes, not one headline number.
Accepted holes per scheduled machine hour: accepted holes divided by total test time, including planned tool changes and normal interruptions. Time per hole: include peck cycles, positioning and any extra steps. Tool life: good holes before the agreed end-of-life condition, plus the number of heads consumed. Hole quality: check the dimensions, location, finish or other characteristics required by the drawing. Cost per accepted hole: include head cost, machine and labor time, and scrap or rework attributable to the process. Process stability: note chip evacuation, vibration, edge damage and variation between parts.
A faster cut is not a better result if it creates out-of-tolerance holes or more rework. Set the acceptance limits before the trial, then repeat the comparison if the result is close or varies between runs.
A practical decision rule
Switch only when the candidate meets the part’s quality requirements and delivers a repeatable improvement in the measure that matters to your shop—throughput, cost per accepted hole, or both. Keep the trial record with the exact tool models, workpiece, hole geometry, coolant, cutting data and sample results. That is the evidence needed to decide whether a claimed gain applies to your job.
For a tool comparison, share the material, hole diameter and depth, machine and holder, coolant conditions and current cutting data with the tooling team. Those details make a product recommendation more useful than a percentage quoted without an application.
For a general overview of three-edge replaceable drill tips, see https://mkcnctools.com/blog/three-edge-replaceable-drill-tip-cnc-drilling. This article focuses on how to validate a performance claim in a specific production application.