Wago alternatives? Cost effective

[JohnW2]

Not necessarily - the smaller company will have much lower overheads, less advertising, fewer sales bods, less need for company BMW's, fancy office space..

Great minds obviously think alike (see post #59)

When I (rarely) buy any medicine, I read the contents, then look around the shelves for the cheaper product with the same active ingredients, often at a fraction of the cost. All have to be approved, to be on sale.

Quite so - again, exactly as I said in #59. However, to be fair, a generic medicine has to be approved by the relevant regulatory authority (MHRA in UK) on the basis of "efficacy, safety and quality". Efficacy and safety do not have to be demonstrated, since that has already been established in relation to the original branded medicine, but extensive evidence of 'quality' has to be provided and approved (but see *** below). In contrast, a 'copy' or 'me too' electrical item is likely to be 'self-certified' (by CE/UKSA marking), so not scrutinised by any independent body.

[*** many generic medicines are actually even 'safer', but much cheaper, than the original branded product than you may think - since they (at least the 'active ingredient') are no uncommonly manufactured by the manufacturer of the branded product and sold to the 'generic house' at very low cost. That may sound daft (on the part of the branded manufacturer) but they often take the view that (once a medicine is 'off-patent') people are going to find ways of making or buying a generic product whether or not the branded manufacturer is involved, so that might as well get 'something, rather than nothing' out of the generic sales.
That is possible because the literal cost of producing a medicine is often tiny, nearly all of the usual price being attributable to the vast historical; cost of development (including attempted development of all the products which didn't 'make it to market') ]

 

[plugwash]

It might not always be that way; some, perhaps many cheapo nasty makes have looked to cast off the early day stigma as they've grown and become well established (remember when LG were Goldstar churning out cheap, unreliable carp?)

I'm getting that impression about fusebox, when I first encountered them they seemed rather questionable, but now they seem to be seeking out third party approval of their products, and making their legal company details much more obvious.

What surely matters is whether a product is 'satisfactory' (per its spec, reliable, 'safe' etc. etc..),

Agreed, which breaks down into several questions.

1. Is the products spec satisfactory? Wago and ideal specify their connectors as compliant with an appropriate IEC standard. Some cheaper brands give voltage and current ratings, but don't specify any particular standard against which those ratings are measured. Similarly Wago (and ideal) give ratings for both working voltage and test voltage, again cheaper brands often do not.
2. can you trust the product to actually meet the specs it claims to meet. Do you intend to do your own testing, or are you completely reliant on your vendors.
3. If something does go wrong, can a safety regulator trace the problem back through the supply chain, determine whether it's a systematic issue and if the issue is sufficiently severe, issue a recall?

When I (rarely) buy any medicine, I read the contents, then look around the shelves for the cheaper product with the same active ingredients, often at a fraction of the cost. All have to be approved, to be on sale.

And that is a key difference, manufactures of electrical components are subject to no such restrictions.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm getting that impression about fusebox, when I first encountered them they seemed rather questionable, but now they seem to be seeking out third party approval of their products, and making their legal company details much more obvious.

Indeed. - and I'm sure that there are countless other examples, in all fields, where a new company, inevitably initislly 'small' and 'unknown' is initially regarded with uncertainty/suspicion but which, over a period of time, develops into and much larger 'known and trusted' company/msnufacturer/supplier.

Agreed, which breaks down into several questions.
1. Is the products spec satisfactory? ....
2. can you trust the product to actually meet the specs it claims to meet. .....
3. If something does go wrong, can a safety regulator trace the problem back through the supply chain, determine whether it's a systematic issue and if the issue is sufficiently severe, issue a recall?

Again, agreed. Those questions need top be considered, and answered as best as they can be. All I'm really suggesting is that one should not just automatically assume that any product from a small and/or 'unknown' manufacturer, particularly if cheap, is necessarily a poor or unsatisfactory product. If one takes that view then, as above, it would be impossible for sny new company to ever become established.

It's a bit like the situation which has existed as regards employment in some areas - with it being very difficult to get a job without 'experience', yet impossible to get 'experience' without getting a job - in that situation some 'brave' employers have to 'take the plunge', otherwise the whole employee supply chain would grind to as halt!

And that is a key difference, manufactures of electrical components are subject to no such restrictions.

Yes, as I suggested in my last message (as a difference between electrical items and medicines). However, what I was really trying to illustrate that even very cheap products are not necessarily in any way inferior (or, necessarily, even different from) the 'expensive originals').

That's particularity the case with medicines, for which the dramatically lower price of generic 'copies' is understandable - the much higher price charged for the branded product has to attempt to recover the 'development cost' (usually £100millio+ these days) as well as the cost of manufacturing the product, whilst the generic supply only has to recover the latter ... and, for many medicines, the cost of manufacturer is totally trivial (not the least because they are "manufactured in tonnes and sold in milligrams or micrograms) - with 'everyday' medicines like paracetamol and ibuprofen, the cost of the packaging, distribution and other overheads is often appreciably greater than the manufacturing cost of the medicine itself/

 

[plugwash]

All I'm really suggesting is that one should not just automatically assume that any product from a small and/or 'unknown' manufacturer, particularly if cheap, is necessarily a poor or unsatisfactory product. If one takes that view then, as above, it would be impossible for sny new company to ever become established.

There are many things a company can do to increase their trust level.

1. Convince major distributors to stock their products. Distributors aren't a perfect filter, but they have a strong incentive to avoid stuff that is likely to trigger a recall.
2. Seek out third-party certification, even when it is not legally mandatory.
3. Provide quality specifications, indicating what standards their products are produced to.
4. Make the legal name and registration details of the buisiness clearly available on their website.
5. Have a registered address that is located in a friendly jurisdiction and looks like an actual place of buisiness, rather than someone's house or a mailbox shop.

Wago tick all these boxes. I haven't checked in detail, but I suspect ideal check most of them too. I don't think I've found another manufacturer of lever splicing connectors that ticks more than one of them. If you have, please do share.

 

[robinbanks]

All have to be approved, to be on sale.

That's a bit chalk with the cheese situation here though. Who approves Wago knock-offs before they appear for sale on eBay?