What Is a Galvo Laser? Cutting Fiberglass with the Commarker Titan 1 vs. a Gantry CO2

Every time a department head needs a few fiberglass panels cut, it becomes my problem. I manage purchasing for a 32-person product development firm, and for years I sent those jobs to an outside fabricator. At roughly $300–$400 per square foot of finished cut work, it wasn't cheap. But when our prototyping requests tripled in 2024 and that line item approached $42,000 annually, finance asked me to seriously evaluate bringing the work in-house.

That led me to a decision I hadn't expected to be difficult: galvo laser or gantry laser? I spent two months comparing the Commarker Titan 1, a galvo-based system, against a 24×36-inch CO2 gantry cutter from an established industrial brand. This is what I wish someone had explained to me before I started.

What Is a Galvo Laser, Exactly?

This terminology tripped me up at first, so let me define it before the comparison gets confusing. Galvo is short for galvanometer; it's not a brand or a specific power level.

In a galvo laser, the laser source stays stationary inside the machine. Two small mirrors mounted on galvanometer motors steer the beam across the work area. That means the beam can reposition incredibly quickly—think thousands of millimeters per second—because the system only has to rotate tiny mirrors, not move a heavy cutting head.

By contrast, a gantry laser physically moves the entire cutting head along X and Y rails above the material. The work area is usually larger, but every movement has to overcome the physical mass of the head.

The reason this matters for fiberglass: fiberglass is not a uniform plastic. It's glass fiber reinforcement embedded in a resin matrix. The resin needs to be vaporized cleanly, while the glass fibers need to be ejected before they melt or delaminate. Continuous-wave and pulsed laser sources handle that differently, and the difference shows up fast on real parts.

How I Tested the Two Systems

I asked both suppliers to run side-by-side sample cuts on our actual materials—no cherry-picking demos. I used 1.6 mm (0.06 in) fiberglass sheets, which we use for lightweight prototype brackets and insulation panels, plus some 3.2 mm (0.125 in) material that comes up in mechanical supports.

Two important caveats before I share the results:

• Laser-cut fiberglass develops char at the cut edge. That's true on both machine types. It's acceptable for functional prototypes and internal parts, but if you need cosmetic edges or extremely tight tolerances, a waterjet or a CNC router is honestly a better fit.
• I tested the Commarker Titan 1 as a representative galvo system with MOPA-style pulse control. If you're comparing a cheaper fixed-Q fiber laser, your results might not match mine.

Dimension 1: Edge Quality and Heat-Affected Zone

This was the result that surprised me. I expected the CO2 gantry—the traditional machine used for non-metal cutting—to produce cleaner edges on fiberglass. It didn't, at least not on the thinner material.

The galvo's ability to fire short pulses instead of a continuous beam made a meaningful difference on 1.6 mm fiberglass. Each pulse vaporizes a small amount of material and moves on before heat has time to spread into the surrounding resin. The measured heat-affected zone, or HAZ, was noticeably narrower than what the CO2 tube produced at its best settings. The galvo edges were less charred, less fuzzy, and more consistent along corners and curves.

On the 3.2 mm sheets, the story reversed. The gantry, running a slower feed rate with continuous wave output, delivered one continuous kerf and managed to cut through in a single pass without leaving the tapered char that showed up in the galvo's multi-pass attempts. The galvo could eventually cut the thicker material, but the top edge was wider than the bottom edge, and re-melted resin stuck to the backside.

Winner: galvo below 2 mm, gantry above 3 mm. That's a decisive split, and it honestly surprised me.

Dimension 2: Throughput, Not Just Machine Speed

Marketing materials love galvo speed numbers. And sure, the Titan 1 can do marking operations in seconds that would take a gantry machine several minutes. But for fiberglass cutting, end-to-end throughput depends on part size and how many parts you can fit in one setup.

With a nested grid of small 100×100 mm parts on a 1.6 mm sheet, the galvo finished roughly four times faster than the gantry. That kind of batch isn't unusual for us, so the speed advantage was real.

But when we tested a single large panel, say 500 × 500 mm—which exceeds the galvo's effective image field—I had to reposition the material multiple times. Each reposition added a minute or two of setup, alignment, and re-focusing. The gantry handled the same large piece in one pass without repositioning. The total cycle time ended up nearly equal, which feels counterintuitive if you've only looked at the headline speed specs.

Winner: galvo for small/modular parts, gantry for large one-piece panels.

Dimension 3: Floor Space and Shop Integration

This isn't the first thing buyers think about, but it should be. We're an engineering firm, not a large fabrication warehouse. Workspace is at a premium.

The galvo unit, including its integrated controller and power supply, occupied a fraction of the space that the gantry required. The gantry also needed clearance for its motors, rails, and a longer cutting bed. We could place the Titan 1 against a wall and walk around it. The gantry forced us to reorganize a whole corner of the shop.

Our situation isn't unusual either. I hear from other purchasing people in smaller companies that floor space often becomes the deciding factor after budget. If you're cramped, the galvo's compact footprint is a practical advantage that doesn't show up in the spec sheet.

Winner: galvo, unless you already have dedicated space for a large gantry.

Dimension 4: Operating Cost, Maintenance, and Downtime

Over a five-year ownership window, the cost comparison is not as obvious as the sticker price suggests. I'll use ranges here rather than exact numbers because pricing moves and regional discounts vary. Based on quotes I received in January 2025, a comparable galvo system like the Titan 1 landed in the upper end of the mid-range, while an 80W CO2 gantry with a 24×36-inch bed was often cheaper upfront. But that gap narrowed once I factored in consumables and expected component life.

CO2 tubes have a finite lifespan. The source I was quoted for the gantry system had an expected life in the range of thousands of hours, depending on power settings, and replacing it meant both a component cost and downtime. A galvo system with a solid-state fiber source typically has a much longer expected service life, often rated in the tens of thousands of hours with no scheduled tube replacement.

There's also filtering. Cutting fiberglass produces resin fumes and fine particulate that needs to be captured—not optional in a commercial shop with someone walking around and a health-and-safety officer nearby. According to OSHA guidance on laser cutting composite materials, local exhaust ventilation is the standard approach, and a basic extraction unit with appropriate filters was an additional line item for both setups. Same cost roughly, so I won't count it as a tie-breaker, but don't forget to budget for it.

Winner: galvo over a multi-year horizon from a maintenance perspective.

What the Sales Sheet Didn't Tell Me

Here's the thing I kept circling back to: both technologies have a legitimate place, but neither is the universal "professional laser cutter." That phrase doesn't mean one machine. It depends entirely on the material and geometry you feed it.

The numbers from my research pointed clearly toward the CO2 gantry—cheaper upfront, bigger bed, more established in fiberglass cutting. But my gut said the galvo's pulse control and compact footprint would handle the majority of our actual jobs better. I was split, so I asked both vendors to run the head-to-head test rather than trusting my own bias.

I'm glad I did. The galvo genuinely won on thin materials, where most of our volume sits. But if our work had skewed thick or large-format, the gantry would have been the correct call. Had I bought based on the spreadsheet alone, I would have owned the wrong machine for 70% of our orders.

I also need to be honest about another limitation: at the end of the day, both systems leave a visible char line on fiberglass. If your customer or application demands a perfectly clean edge, don't be talked into buying either one. Send those parts to a waterjet shop or cut them on a router. Laser cutting is the right answer for prototypes, internal components, and low-to-moderate volumes where minor edge burning is acceptable.

Which Machine Should You Buy?

Based on my purchasing experience, I recommend the galvo route—specifically the Commarker Titan 1—if your situation looks like this:

• Most of your fiberglass work is 2 mm or thinner.
• You typically batch many small to medium parts on a sheet.
• You also want to mark, engrave, or cut other materials such as painted metal, plastic, or thin stainless steel with the same machine.
• Floor space is limited.
• You want a solid-state source with less scheduled maintenance than a CO2 tube.

I'd steer you toward a gantry CO2 if most of your fiberglass is thick, if you regularly process full-size sheets as single pieces, or if you also plan to cut wood, acrylic, and thick non-metal stock as your primary workload. For that use, the gantry is still the pragmatic choice.

And if your fiberglass parts need flawless edges or tight tolerances? Neither. Buy waterjet time or route them. That's an honest answer, and it'll save you from an expensive mistake.

We bought the Titan 1 after the test results came in. It's been handling our thin fiberglass prototypes for four months now with repeatable quality, and finance is happy with the payback. But I'm just as glad we went through the full comparison before writing the PO. The right professional laser cutter isn't the one with the most impressive logo—it's the one that actually matches your work.