## 1 Introduction  
Metal additive manufacturing (MAM) technologies like laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) represent laser-based techniques employed to develop products using powdered metals. It is used to manufacture prototypes during product development, as well as for applications with small batch sizes and with frequent design changes [1]. Thanks to its flexibility, speed, and cost effectiveness [2], the technique is also being investigated for the development of injection molding tools [3]. The conventional methods of producing these tools are through subtractive manufacturing, which is time-consuming and relatively expensive. Furthermore, additive manufacturing (AM) offers opportunities for innovative modifications in the product design that conventionally are not possible in an effective and efficient way. The choice of injection mold tooling using AM can bring several advantages, such as flexible development, design freedom (to improve the product's performance), and reduced assembly effort, but also some disadvantages such as higher machine and material cost and the skills gap in using sophisticate machinery and software [4; 5]. Hence, the manufacturing of high-performance tooling can currently be achieved either with conventional machining (CM), i.e., subtractive technologies such as milling, or AM [6]. As both methodologies present advantages and disadvantages, a detailed analysis must be conducted to identify the consequences of selecting a method over the other throughout the process and value chains. Such a comparison of subtractive and additive manufacturing is already available in literature; for example, in [7], [PERSON] et al. compared AM against conventional manufacturing processes. To describe AM, they introduced the statement of \"complexity for free\". The metaphor describes the fact that, in the case of AM, an increased complexity in product design does not correspond to an increase in cost of production, which is contrary to conventional manufacturing. Furthermore, the research presents a framework for a direct comparison of LPBF and conventional machining (computer numerical controlled (CNC) milling). However, a detailed split of the costs and time contributions to the full value chain has not been fully investigated and, currently, a research gap in this topic remains. The lack of such a perspective makes the decision of the manufacturing route to follow (AM or CM) not as informed as it should be, without a clear understanding of the costs and lead time involved, together with the general productivity of the specific technology chosen. In the research presented in this paper, AM and CM value chains are compared quantitatively and qualitatively for producing mold inserts for plastic injection molding, with the goal to provide a relevant example of the costs, lead time, and production efficiency involved in the two manufacturing routes, together with a proven methodology to conduct such a comparison. The AM and CM produced mold inserts are equally capable and can withstand the same number of molding cycles; therefore, the AM products are not considered as a prototype or a preventive maintenance tool (as in [8]) or a spare part (as in [9; 10]), but a fully functional and finished product, totally comparable to the tools produced by CM. At first, a detailed technology comparison is presented, followed by the economic analysis. Such a step-by-step analysis is particularly relevant to better understand the consequence in terms of the technologies involved and the economic impact of the choice of the two streams on the final product.