PET vs PETG Cosmetic Bottles: What 417 Formats Show

Most PET versus PETG questions are two questions wearing one coat. One is a format question: at my target capacity and neck, which material does the catalogue actually build in? The other is a compatibility question: will this polymer hold my formula? A catalogue can answer the first with counts. It cannot answer the second, and any page that pretends otherwise is selling you a guess.

This article does the first. For buyers comparing PET vs PETG cosmetic bottles, the counts below are the part of the answer a catalogue can give. Across 514 bottle and jar formats from one manufacturing partner, 268 are recorded as PET and 149 as PETG — 417 formats, or 81% of the range. The remaining 97 are spread across PP (26), HDPE (21), ABS (6), PE (5), LDPE (3), two entries that name two polymers (HDPE/LDPE, and a PP jar body with a PP lid), and 32 rows where the material field is blank. What follows is what those counts say about size, weight and neck, followed by an explicit list of what they do not say.

PET vs PETG cosmetic bottles: what the 417 formats split looks like

Both are polyester resins; PETG is PET modified with glycol during polymerisation, which changes how the resin processes. That is the material difference behind the two names. It is not a statement about which one suits your fill — that question is settled at the sample stage, with the actual formula in the actual pack.

Material as printed	Formats	Share of 514
PET	268	52%
PETG	149	29%
PP	26	5%
HDPE	21	4%
ABS	6	1%
PE	5	1%
LDPE	3	1%
HDPE / LDPE	2	<1%
PP jar body / PP lid	2	<1%
Blank	32	6%

PET is the larger family by a clear margin, but PETG is not a niche: at 149 formats it is larger than every non-PET material combined. For a buyer, that matters because it means the choice is usually real at both ends. It is rarely "the range only comes in PET". In this catalogue, PET vs PETG cosmetic bottles is therefore a question about which formats exist at your target capacity and neck — not about which polymer wins in the abstract.

PET cosmetic bottle: the capacity, weight and neck profile

These are the fields the source catalogue actually prints. Where a field is blank, the coverage number tells you how many rows the median is based on.

Printed field	PET	PETG
Formats	268	149
Capacity printed	260 (8 blank)	141 (8 blank)
Median nominal capacity	120 ml	80 ml
Capacity range	5–800 ml	8–650 ml
Bottle weight printed	218 (50 blank)	120 (29 blank)
Median bottle weight	25 g	33 g
Bottle weight range	4.5–68 g	6–75 g
Bottle weight ÷ nominal capacity	210 rows; median 0.22 g/ml	112 rows; median 0.28 g/ml
Neck printed	263 (5 blank)	129 (20 blank)

The two distributions overlap but lean differently. PET formats centre on a larger fill and a lighter bottle; PETG formats centre on a smaller fill and a heavier bottle. Per millilitre, the median PETG row in this catalogue carries about 28% more bottle weight than the median PET row. The catalogue does not publish wall thickness, so that difference cannot be assigned to one cause — it is a count, not a materials-science verdict.

PETG cosmetic bottle: neck counts move with the material

The neck counts are where the two families diverge most visibly. They are counts of formats, not a statement that a given closure fits a given bottle.

Neck diameter	PET formats	PETG formats
24 mm	113	30
20 mm	52	50
43 mm	43	6
18 mm	17	—
32 mm	15	—
28 mm	12	6
13 mm	—	16
33 mm	—	8
36 mm	—	6

Only diameters with five or more formats in either column are listed. The remaining PET rows are spread across 30 mm (7), 56 mm (2) and smaller counts; the remaining PETG rows across 15 mm (3) and smaller counts.

24 mm is the dominant PET neck here; 20 mm is the dominant PETG neck. If you already own a closure, this table is a useful first filter: it tells you how many formats in each material even print your diameter. It does not tell you that any of them will accept your closure. Diameter is one part of a neck finish, and the catalogue publishes diameter only — not thread pitch, start count or bead geometry.

The form labels in the item names follow the same pattern. Among PET formats, 117 names contain "spray", 50 "foam" and 45 "lotion"; among PETG formats, 55 contain "spray", 43 "lotion" and 22 "dropper". These are name keywords, not verified dispensing tests. They describe what the source catalogue calls the format, and they are useful for knowing where to look, not for promising that a pump will perform with your fill.

What the PET and PETG counts do not tell you

This is the part that decides projects, so it gets stated plainly.

They do not establish chemical compatibility. Whether PET or PETG is right for a formula depends on the carrier, concentration, contact time, temperature and closure materials — and it is settled by testing the actual pack with the actual fill. We do not publish a compatibility table, because a table built from polymer names would be a guess dressed as data. Bring the formula's carrier and any known constraints; compatibility is confirmed at the sample stage.

They do not rank the materials. "PETG has a higher number in this catalogue" is not "PETG is better". The counts reflect what one manufacturing partner builds, in the sizes its customers asked for. Another range would produce a different distribution.

They do not cover food contact, recycling or medical use. The source catalogue has no field for any of those, and this site does not claim them. If a project needs a regulatory statement, that is a separate question with its own evidence, and it should be asked before a format is chosen.

They do not fill the blanks. Eight PETG formats and eight PET formats print no capacity; 29 PETG and 50 PET rows print no bottle weight; 20 PETG and 5 PET rows print no neck. A blank is unknown, not a default. Treat every blank as a question for the sample request.

A brief that separates format from compatibility

Question	What to send	What it decides
What goes in it?	Carrier type and any known compatibility constraints	Whether a material is worth sampling at all; confirmed by test, not by a table
How much?	Nominal fill and brim-full target if critical	Capacity band and headspace
What closes it?	The closure you already have, or its measured neck	Which neck counts are even relevant
What should it look like?	Clear, translucent, coloured; label or print area	Which formats in the range are candidates
How heavy can it be?	A bottle-weight ceiling or target, if freight is sensitive	Whether a heavier format is acceptable
How is it decorated?	The process you plan to use	Whether the format is used with that process; confirmed at sample

If the material question is still open after that, the honest next step is a sample pair: the same fill in one PET format and one PETG format, tested the same way. That costs less than choosing on a polymer name and discovering the problem after tooling.

Where the numbers come from

All 514 formats are published on the bottles and jars page, each with its printed material, capacity, neck and weight where the catalogue provides them. The counts above are recomputed from the public catalogue data by tools/formats_topic_facts.py petg. The neck distribution across the whole range, including the non-PET materials, is in our neck-size guide.

These formats come from the catalogue of a manufacturing partner in our network and are made to order — we quote per project rather than from a stock list, and order quantity is confirmed project by project. If you are weighing PET against PETG, send the fill, the capacity, the closure and any weight ceiling. We will tell you which formats in the range fit those constraints, and which questions only a sample can answer. Start an enquiry → And if you want to see how a sample is checked before a lot ships, our inspection file includes the lots that were held back: read the file →