EPS and paper honeycomb are both used to protect products during transport, but they do so in fundamentally different ways. Those differences are not cosmetic. They affect how a package behaves under load, how it should be designed, and what you can realistically expect from it.
Designing paper honeycomb packaging with an EPS mindset often leads to disappointing results. The opposite is also true. Understanding the underlying mechanics is essential if you want packaging that performs reliably and uses material efficiently.
EPS: protection through shape and volume
EPS is an isotropic foam material. In practice, this means it behaves more or less the same in every direction. When a product is dropped or impacted, EPS absorbs energy through local compression of the foam at the point where the force enters.
Because of this behavior, EPS performs well when the product is largely enclosed by the material and when the foam closely follows the product geometry. The protection does not rely on predefined force paths or support locations. Instead, the foam itself absorbs uncertainty. Whether a load comes from the side, the corner, or the top, EPS deforms locally and dissipates energy.
This is why EPS is commonly used in situations with uncontrolled handling conditions such as drops, shocks, or rough logistics environments. In many cases, the design logic is straightforward: if the EPS fits the product and there is enough volume, it will usually work. The protective performance sits mainly in the material and the molded shape, not in the overall packaging structure.
Paper honeycomb: protection through structure and load paths
Paper honeycomb behaves very differently. It is anisotropic and directional by nature. The material is extremely strong in compression perpendicular to the cell direction, but far less forgiving when loads are applied randomly or concentrated in small areas without structural support.
Honeycomb does not protect by collapsing everywhere. It protects by carrying loads along defined paths. For that reason, honeycomb packaging only performs well when the design deliberately controls where forces enter the product and how they are transferred to the outer packaging.
Instead of enclosing the product, a honeycomb design typically creates distance between the product and the outside world. The product is supported at specific points, and forces are guided toward those points through geometry, material orientation, and spacing. Protection emerges from the system as a whole rather than from a single protective shape.
When that system is well designed, honeycomb delivers high strength with very little material. When it is not, the material can appear weak or unreliable, even though the issue lies in the design logic rather than in the honeycomb itself.
What does this difference mean in practice?
With EPS, the design question is often implicit. You shape the foam around the product, and the material absorbs most of the variation in loading and handling.
With paper honeycomb, the starting point is different. The key question becomes where forces are allowed to enter the product and where they are not. Answering that question requires conscious decisions about support locations, distances between product and box, material thickness, and cell direction. In some cases, multiple honeycomb components are combined to create a stable structure.
As a result, honeycomb packaging behaves less like a molded part and more like an engineered structure.
Is this a disadvantage?
No. It is simply a different design approach.
Paper honeycomb requires more thinking upfront, but it offers clear advantages in return. Designs typically use less material, rely on paper instead of plastic, scale well from small series to mass production, and often deliver very high stacking strength. In addition, honeycomb solutions align well with current and upcoming PPWR requirements.
At the same time, expectations must be realistic. Paper honeycomb is not a drop-in replacement for EPS, and copying an EPS design one to one in honeycomb rarely leads to good results. Successful honeycomb packaging starts from the structural logic of the material, not from the geometry of foam.
FAQ
No. EPS and paper honeycomb protect products differently. Copying an EPS design directly into honeycomb rarely produces good results. Honeycomb requires a structural approach: forces need to be guided along defined load paths, not absorbed uniformly by the material. A well-designed honeycomb solution starts from scratch with that logic in mind.
The starting point is always: where are forces allowed to enter the product, and where are they not? From that answer, you define support locations, material thickness, cell direction, and spacing. Protection comes from the system as a whole, not from a single molded shape.
It can be, but the design needs to account for it deliberately. EPS is more forgiving in uncontrolled conditions because it absorbs energy uniformly from any direction. Honeycomb can handle demanding environments, but the design needs to consider likely impact directions and load entry points upfront. A well-engineered honeycomb solution can perform excellently under demanding conditions.
Typically yes, the design phase is more involved. Honeycomb behaves more like an engineered structure than a molded part, requiring deliberate choices about geometry, orientation, and load paths. The payoff is a solution that uses less material, is fully recyclable, and often delivers very high stacking strength, advantages that compound at scale.
Paper honeycomb can perform well in drop tests, but only when the packaging is designed specifically around how the material works. EPS absorbs energy uniformly from any direction, making it forgiving in uncontrolled drop scenarios. Honeycomb achieves protection through structural load paths, when those paths are correctly engineered, drop test results are strong. When the design is not adapted to honeycomb’s directional behaviour, drop test performance will disappoint.
Let's think it through together
Curious whether paper honeycomb fits your application? Let's find out together."
Danny Klasens
Sales Manager
Was this article helpful?