Cut-to-Ship Ratio in a Garment Unit: Where the Last 2–4% of an Order Goes (₹)
What is a good cut-to-ship ratio in garments? It is pieces shipped ÷ pieces cut × 100, and Apparel Resources (1 Sep 2012) calls "close to 98%" very good. In our example (20 Oct 2026), a 50,000-polo order closing at 96% instead of 98% loses about ₹2.7 lakh; cutting 5% extra to hide the leak costs almost as much.
Last checked: 20 Oct 2026
By the Mama Editorial Team. Every benchmark below carries its source and date; every ₹ figure is an assumption marked "assume". Put in your own order numbers.
Key takeaways
- Two ratios, two audiences. Cut-to-ship (shipped ÷ cut) is the factory's own leak meter. Order-to-ship (shipped against ordered) is what the buyer sees, and Online Clothing Study calls it the most important factor in vendor evaluation.
- Published benchmarks run 95–99%. Apparel Resources put the range at 95–99% in 2009, called "close to 98%" very good in 2012, and set "above 99 per cent" as the target in January 2025.
- One number mixes two decisions. A factory that cuts 3% extra and loses nothing still shows 97% if it ships only the order quantity. Track "pieces lost" separately from "planned extra cut".
- The leak is spread over five stages. Cutting, sewing, wash or print, finishing and packing each lose a little; no single report shows the total until the order closes.
- Cutting more is an expensive patch. In the worked example, raising the extra cut from 3% to 5% protects the shipment but spends about ₹2.6 lakh of fabric and making cost to recover ₹40,000 as stock lot.
Two ratios that are often confused
Cut-to-ship and order-to-ship sound alike and are written in different directions by different sources. Check which form your MIS uses before comparing yourself with anyone.
| Ratio | Formula | Published target | Source (date) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cut-to-ship (%) | Pieces shipped ÷ pieces cut × 100 | "Close to 98%" is very good | Apparel Resources, 1 Sep 2012 |
| Cut-to-ship (%) | Same | 95–99% range | Apparel Resources, 1 Jul 2009 |
| Cut-to-ship (%) | Same | "Above 99 per cent" | Apparel Resources, 21 Jan 2025 |
| Cut : ship (ratio) | Pieces cut ÷ pieces shipped | Example 10,200 : 10,000 = 1.02 | Online Clothing Study, 7 Oct 2013 |
| Order-to-ship (ratio) | Order quantity ÷ shipped quantity | "Always 1" | Online Clothing Study KPI list |
The 2012 Apparel Resources guide takes shipped pieces "from final packing list" and cut pieces as "all the garments cut for this order". Its worked order cut 315 garments and shipped 290, a cut-to-ship of 92%, meaning 8% of the cut was lost or rejected, per the same guide.
Online Clothing Study says (2013) that garment exporters "generally cut 2-5% extra" over the order quantity, with the extra decided by the merchandiser according to fabric type and the number of processes. Its KPI list describes order-to-ship as the factor buyers weigh most when they evaluate a vendor.
No buyer-published or government benchmark for cut-to-ship in Indian garment units was found in the sources searched (checked 20 Oct 2026). The figures above are trade-press and training benchmarks, not a standard.
Why one ratio hides two decisions
The cut quantity contains two things: the order and the extra cut the merchandiser planned. The shipped quantity also contains two things: the pieces that survived and the decision whether to ship any surplus.
Take an order of 10,000 shirts cut at 3% extra, 10,300 pieces. If every piece survives and the factory ships exactly 10,000, the cut-to-ship is 97.1%, even though nothing was lost. If the buyer accepts the 300 extra pieces, the same factory shows 100%.
That is why the owner's report needs three lines, not one: planned extra cut (%), pieces lost (cut minus good pieces, % of cut), and order-to-ship. Only the middle line is a leak. The other two are commercial decisions.
Buyers' tolerance for extra pieces varies. Roger Thomas, writing in Apparel Resources on 1 Jul 2009, describes a case where the buyer "allows a potential 5% to be over-shipped", and Online Clothing Study notes (2013) that some buyers accept a small overage at the same FOB price. Your purchase order is the only document that settles this for your style.
Where the pieces go: cutting to packing
The 2012 Apparel Resources guide lists the losses between fabric bought and garments shipped: dead stock, end bits and cutting-room losses, part change and rejection in sewing, rejection in finishing, and unshipped garments. The cut-to-ship ratio picks up the piece losses from cutting onward.
An Apparel Resources article on cost optimisation (8 Jun 2020) lists cut-to-ship loss among the areas with the largest saving potential and puts it at anywhere from 0.05 up to 5–7 per cent of sales, depending on the product and the number of value-adding processes such as printing, embroidery, beading, washing and over-dyeing.
The stage split below is an assumption for a knit polo with one print and no wash, built so the total matches a 96% order. Your own stage registers replace it.
| Stage | How pieces are lost | Lost, % of cut (assume) | Record that catches it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting | Mis-cut panels, shade bands, fabric faults found after cutting and not re-cut | 0.5 | Re-cut register, shade-band report |
| Sewing | Damaged or incomplete pieces, parts missing from bundles, pieces put aside and not booked | 1.5 | Bundle tickets, line reject register |
| Print / embroidery / wash | Misprints, shrinkage out of spec, pieces short on return from job work | 1.0 | Job-work challan in vs out |
| Finishing and checking | Stains, holes, measurement fails written off as B-grade | 0.8 | Final check register, B-grade count |
| Packing | Sizes or colours that do not complete the buyer's ratio pack | 0.2 | Size-wise packing list vs cut report |
| Total | 4.0 (cut-to-ship 96%) | Order closing reconciliation |
Sewing gets the largest share in this assumption because Online Clothing Study's 2012 note on rejection describes operators putting defective or incomplete pieces under tables, so the shortage is not noticed until finishing. The same note defines rejection rate as rejected garments ÷ total cut quantity × 100.
Online Clothing Study's 2018 piece on missing garments describes the end of the story: the packing team cannot get all sizes in the ordered ratio, and staff search stitching, washing and the repair section before shipping whatever was packed. Its diagnosis is that no department records what it received from the previous process.
Size matters more than the total. A 98% order can still ship short in XL if the XL bundles took the sewing losses, so reconcile by size and colour, not only by order.
Worked ₹ example: one 50,000-polo order at 98% and at 96%
Every input is an assumption for illustration. Assume an order of 50,000 knit polos, an FOB price of ₹400 a piece, a cost to make (fabric, trims and CMT) of ₹260 a piece, a planned extra cut of 3%, and surplus good pieces sold as stock lot at ₹100 each. Assume the buyer takes no overage.
| Line (pieces, assume) | A: 98% cut-to-ship | B: 96% cut-to-ship | C: 96%, extra cut raised to 5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pieces cut | 51,500 | 51,500 | 52,500 |
| Pieces lost (2% / 4% / 4% of cut) | 1,030 | 2,060 | 2,100 |
| Good pieces | 50,470 | 49,440 | 50,400 |
| Pieces shipped | 50,000 | 49,440 | 50,000 |
| Short against order | 0 | 560 | 0 |
| Surplus to stock lot | 470 | 0 | 400 |
| Order-to-ship (shipped ÷ ordered, %) | 100.0 | 98.9 | 100.0 |
Now price the three cases against A.
| Item | B vs A (₹, assume) | C vs A (₹, assume) |
|---|---|---|
| Invoice lost on short pieces (560 × ₹400) | −2,24,000 | 0 |
| Stock-lot income lost (470 × ₹100; C: 70 × ₹100) | −47,000 | −7,000 |
| Extra pieces cut and made (1,000 × ₹260) | 0 | −2,60,000 |
| Net against case A | −2,71,000 | −2,67,000 |
| Same gap on 12 such orders a year | −32,52,000 | −32,04,000 |
Case B is a 1.1% short shipment and ₹2.71 lakh, about 1.4% of an assumed ₹2 crore order. If the buyer charges a short-shipment penalty or the shortfall pushes the ex-factory date, the cost rises; our piece on what a missed ex-factory date costs prices that separately.
Case C is the common fix: cut more next time. It protects order-to-ship, so the buyer sees nothing. It costs almost the same as the leak itself, because the 1,000 extra pieces carry full fabric and making cost and most of them still end up lost or in stock lot.
The cheaper move is to find the 2% between A and B. In this assumption, more than half of the loss sits in sewing and print, which is where the next section points.
What to check when an order closes
Online Clothing Study's 2018 piece recommends an order tracking sheet, filled size-wise and colour-wise by each department, with the cutting department taking the sewing department's signature against each transfer. That sheet is the base of the routine below.
- Close every order within a week of shipment. Cut quantity by size and colour from the cut report; shipped quantity from the final packing list.
- Write three numbers, not one. Planned extra cut (%), pieces lost (% of cut) and order-to-ship. Report them every month for the last ten closed orders.
- Walk the loss back stage by stage. Received minus passed on, for cutting, each line, job work, finishing and packing. The stage where the gap opens is the stage to visit.
- Look at size, not just total. List the sizes that shipped short. Short sizes with a good overall ratio mean bundles were lost or mixed, not that quality failed.
- Price the lost pieces at cost to make. A lost polo in this example is ₹260 already spent, not just ₹400 not invoiced.
The fabric side of the same order, from store to cutting table, is covered in our guide on reconciling fabric issued vs consumed. Cutting-room waste inside the lay is priced in fabric wastage and marker efficiency.
What cameras can and cannot tell you here
A camera over the floor does not count pieces by size and does not tell a stain from a shadow. Defect type, B-grade counts and the size-wise shortfall still come from your registers and packing list.
What a camera can show is where pieces stop moving. Bundles piled beside one line for hours, a reject bin that fills on one shift, a job-work return that sat at the gate overnight, and a finishing table backed up before shipment are all visible as piles and movement, without watching any individual.
The rework side of the loop, where sewing rejects become alterations, is priced in our article on end-line DHU and the alteration loop. What happens when a lot fails at the buyer's inspection is in the cost of a failed AQL final inspection.
If you place cameras on work areas, workers should be told why and what is recorded. The worker CCTV notice under DPDP gives a template.
Where Mama fits
Mama reads the cameras a factory already has, or a few it adds, and each morning sends the owner a short note on where hours and money leaked the day before. For an order heading to shipment, that means which lines built up bundle piles, how long the reject and alteration areas stayed full, and when finishing backed up. Mama looks at machines, piles and flow in aggregate, never at named operators; piece counts by size still come from your cut report and packing list. For the full map of where a textile unit spends more than it should, see spending less on fabric, rework, overtime and energy. Leave an email or phone in the form below and Mama will get back to you.
FAQ
What is a good cut-to-ship ratio in garment manufacturing?
Apparel Resources' cutting-room guide (1 Sep 2012) calls a ratio close to 98% very good, its 2009 fabric-management article gives a range of 95–99%, and a January 2025 Apparel Resources piece sets the target above 99%. None of these is a buyer or government standard.
How is cut-to-ship ratio calculated?
Divide the pieces shipped (from the final packing list) by all pieces cut for the order and multiply by 100. Some factories write it the other way round, cut ÷ shipped, so 10,200 cut and 10,000 shipped is 1.02 in Online Clothing Study's 2013 example, or 98% in percentage form.
What is the difference between cut-to-ship and order-to-ship?
Cut-to-ship compares shipped pieces with pieces cut and measures the factory's internal losses. Order-to-ship compares shipped pieces with the buyer's order quantity, and Online Clothing Study's KPI list says its target is always 1.
How much extra should a garment factory cut?
Online Clothing Study (2013) says exporters generally cut 2–5% over the order quantity, varying with fabric type and the number of processes. In this article's worked example, raising the extra cut from 3% to 5% to cover a 4% loss costs an assumed ₹2.6 lakh on a 50,000-piece order.
Can cameras measure cut-to-ship ratio?
No. The ratio comes from the cut report and the packing list. Cameras can show where pieces pile up or wait, which tells you which stage to check first.