Help with choosing Material
| Usage | Advantages | Disadvantages | Environmental Friendliness | |
| PET (type 1) |
Disposable glasses only. | Good clarity. Crack proof. Shatterproof. Good green credentials. |
Tumbler shapes only. Cold drinks only. Higher priced. |
High |
| IM Crystal Styrene (type 6) |
Disposable glasses only. | Excellent clarity. Wide variety of shapes. |
Not shatterproof. Higher priced. |
Medium |
| TF Crystal Styrene (type 6) |
Disposable glasses only. | Very good clarity. Shatterproof. |
Not crack proof. Tumbler shapes only. |
Medium |
| IM Polypropylene (type 5) |
Usually reusable glasses. | Relatively inexpensive. Relatively robust. |
Slightly opaque. Cannot be used for clear glasses. |
Medium |
| TF Polypropylene (type 5) |
Disposable glasses only. | Relatively inexpensive. Relatively robust. |
Slightly opaque. Tumbler shapes only. Flimsy when made cheaply. |
Medium |
| Card | Paper cups only. | Good consumer perceptions. Smart looking with 100% print coverage. |
Mixed material means poor recycling. Not ideal for cold drinks. | Low |
| Polycarbonate | Reusable glasses only. | Virtually unbreakable. Excellent clarity. Inflexible, hard wearing, premium feel. |
Higher priced Concerns over BPA additive. |
High |
| Acrylic | Reusable glasses only. | Excellent clarity. Inflexible, hard wearing, premium feel. |
Not unbreakable. | High |
| SAN | Usually jugs and pitchers. | Excellent clarity. Inexpensive. | Lacks the longevity of polycarbonate or acrylic. | High |