Master Titanium Grade Comparison Chart: Mechanical Properties Across Grades 1-29

Executive summary: ASTM recognizes 29 titanium grades in the B348 / B265 / B338 / B861 family, spanning unalloyed commercially pure grades (1-4), palladium-stabilized CP variants (7, 11, 16-18), alpha and near-alpha alloys (6, 12), alpha-beta alloys (5, 9, 23, 28, 29), and near-beta / beta alloys (10, 13, 14, 15, 19-25, 26). A practical procurement-grade comparison chart must show the engineering trade-off axes — strength, density, corrosion resistance, weldability, formability, machinability, temperature limit, and primary application — and avoid the temptation to list every alloying element. The mistake many buyers make is selecting the strongest grade available, when the engineering requirement would be better served by a grade with balanced properties. The reverse mistake is defaulting to Grade 2 or Grade 5 for every application because the broader grade chart is unfamiliar. The right approach is to walk the engineering driver first, then find the simplest grade that meets it.

The five-axis engineering decision

Titanium grade selection reduces to five engineering axes. Each grade has a unique fingerprint on each axis; the procurement question is which fingerprint matches the application.

Axis 1 — Mechanical strength (yield, ultimate, fatigue). Ranges from Grade 1 at 170 MPa yield to Grade 19 (beta-C) at over 1,100 MPa yield. Higher strength usually means lower ductility and worse formability. The strength axis is the most frequently cited and the least frequently the right starting point.

Axis 2 — Corrosion resistance. CP grades (1-4) are excellent in oxidizing environments but limited in reducing acids. Palladium-stabilized (7, 11, 16-18) extend into reducing acid service. Alloys (5, 23, 9) are roughly equivalent to Grade 2 in corrosion behavior; they buy strength, not corrosion resistance. For aggressive chemical service, the palladium-stabilized grades or specialty nickel alloys are the answer, not the high-strength titanium grades. See the Grade 11 titanium corrosion guide for the CP-corrosion discussion.

Axis 3 — Weldability. CP grades and alpha alloys (6, 12) weld easily. Alpha-beta alloys (5, 23) weld but lose ductility in the heat-affected zone. Beta alloys (10, 13, 15) are generally not recommended for welded structures; they are used in solution-treated and aged condition for high strength. The weldability axis often eliminates half the grade chart without further analysis.

Axis 4 — Temperature capability. CP grades lose strength above about 300 °C. Near-alpha alloys (6, 12) maintain strength to about 400 to 500 °C. Alpha-beta alloys (5, 23) up to about 350 °C. Specialty alloys (Ti-6242, IMI 829) reach 550 °C and beyond. The temperature axis is the dominant driver for aerospace engine and rocket nozzle applications.

Axis 5 — Formability and machinability. CP grades are the most formable. Alpha alloys are formable in the annealed condition. Alpha-beta alloys require more force and produce more springback. Beta alloys are formable in the solution-treated condition but require aging for strength. The formability axis determines which grades can be produced as sheet, plate, and complex shapes; the machinability axis affects production cost downstream. See the titanium machinability rating for the machining-side discussion.

The CP family: Grades 1 through 4 and the palladium variants

The CP family spans the four unalloyed grades and their palladium-stabilized counterparts. The differences are driven almost entirely by the interstitial content (primarily oxygen) and the palladium addition. The CP grades are the workhorses of chemical processing, marine, and medical non-implant applications. They are also the easiest to form, weld, and machine — see the titanium grades complete guide for the broader classification context.

Table 1: CP grades and palladium variants

The alpha-beta family: Grades 5, 9, 23, 28, 29

The alpha-beta alloys are the workhorses of the titanium industry. Grade 5 (Ti-6Al-4V) accounts for more than half of all titanium use globally. The family balances strength, toughness, and processability; the trade-offs within the family come from interstitial limits and palladium content rather than from major alloying changes. For the most common ELI variant, see the Grade 23 ELI specification guide.

Table 2: Alpha-beta grades

The alpha and beta families: Grades 6, 12, 10, 13, 15, 19+

The alpha alloys (6, 12) bridge the CP family and the alpha-beta family. Grade 6 (Ti-5Al-2.5Sn) maintains strength at moderately elevated temperatures; Grade 12 (Ti-0.3Mo-0.8Ni) is widely used in chemical processing for its corrosion resistance in hot brine and reducing acid environments. The beta alloys (10, 13, 15, 19-25) provide the highest strength in the titanium family but at the cost of weldability and density.

Table 3: Alpha and beta grades

Cost gradient across the grade spectrum

The cost gradient across titanium grades is driven by raw material availability, melt practice complexity, and qualified supplier base. CP grades (1-4) are at the low end. Grade 5 is roughly 3 to 5× the cost of Grade 2 due to the alloying elements and the heat treatment. Grade 23 carries a 20 to 40 percent premium over Grade 5 for the tighter chemistry and shorter supplier list. Beta alloys (10, 19, 21) and specialty compositions (Ti-6242S, Ti-6246, IMI 829) carry the highest premiums, often 10 to 20× Grade 2, due to limited qualified suppliers and complex processing.

For most industrial applications, the optimal grade balances engineering requirements against cost. Specifying Grade 5 when Grade 2 would suffice wastes the differential. Specifying Grade 23 when Grade 5 would suffice wastes a further increment. The engineering specification should be clear about the driver (corrosion, strength, temperature, biocompatibility) before the grade is selected. The procurement cost follows from the engineering driver, not from a generic preference for the “strongest” or “most corrosion-resistant” grade.

Table 4: Indicative cost multipliers relative to Grade 2

Procurement rules for grade selection

Rule 1 — Start from the engineering driver, not the grade name. Corrosion, strength, temperature, biocompatibility, formability — identify the driver first. The grade follows from the driver, not from prior specification habits.

Rule 2 — Use the simplest grade that meets the requirement. The CP grades are easier to form, weld, and machine than the alloys. Specifying Grade 5 by default wastes the alloy premium. Specifying Grade 23 by default wastes the ELI premium on top of that.

Rule 3 — Match the standard to the product form. Bar to B348, plate to B265, tubing to B338, pipe to B861. Each form has its own standard. A request for “Grade 5 bar to ASTM B265” is internally inconsistent — B265 is for plate, not bar. See the ASTM B348 vs B265 standard comparison for the bar-vs-plate distinction.

Rule 4 — Verify the qualified supplier list. Some grades (5, 23) are widely available; others (10, 13, 15, 21) have limited qualified mills. Check before RFQ. A specification for a beta alloy with no qualified mill is a specification that will not ship.

Rule 5 — Confirm the MTR cites the correct grade and revision. The MTR must show the grade number, the standard revision, the actual chemistry, and the actual mechanical properties. A “Grade 5 per B348” MTR without chemistry values is incomplete for any application where the alloying content matters.

Rule 6 — Engineer contradiction — the strongest grade is not always the right grade. Specifying Grade 19 (beta-C, 1,100 MPa yield) for a part that needs to be formed into a complex shape is a specification mismatch — the grade cannot deliver the geometry. Specifying Grade 23 for a non-implant, non-cryogenic application is a cost mismatch — the ELI premium buys no benefit. The procurement specification should match the grade to the engineering reality, not to a generic notion of “better.”

For a broader introduction to titanium grade classification, see the titanium grade chart classification guide. For a decision-support view of grade selection by application, see the titanium alloy selection guide. To request a grade feasibility review for a specific application, submit your application for review.