Use price-per-material rankings without mistaking them for profit

Use the ranking to form a shortlist

Price overview compares an equipment group under one set of filters. It is useful when you have many possible outputs and want to decide which recipes deserve closer examination. The result is a ranking of market values or adjusted values, not a complete crafting-profit ranking.

Choose the same tier, enchantment, quality, city, and price source for the comparison. The server setting matters too. Changing any of these can change the ranking, so record the setup when comparing results from different sessions.

A high sale price alone does not tell you how expensive an item is to produce. It may require more materials, an expensive artifact, a different production location, or more focus than another candidate.

Normalize different recipe sizes

The following figures are invented examples, not actual recipes or current quotes. Assume the comparison has usable prices and valid material counts for both candidates.

Candidate B has the higher output price, but A has the higher price per material: 12,000 ÷ 16 = 750 versus 18,000 ÷ 32 = 562.5. That makes A worth investigating; it does not prove A is more profitable.

Material count is not material cost. Sixteen units of an expensive resource can cost more than 32 units of a cheap resource. Different ingredient mixes, return rates, and station charges are not represented by this simple division.

Understand what subtracting an artifact changes

Suppose A’s output price is still 12,000 but it has an artifact component priced at 4,000. Removing that component leaves an adjusted value of 8,000. Dividing by the same 16 materials gives 500, so B’s unadjusted 562.5 is now higher in this illustrative comparison.

This adjustment asks how much output value remains after the selected component cost. It is helpful when a large artifact price dominates the full item price. It still does not subtract the cost of the ordinary returnable materials, station charges, taxes, or transport.

Inspect the component-price coverage before relying on the result. If a required component lacks a usable observation, you do not have a complete cost basis. A missing artifact price is not evidence that the artifact costs nothing.

Base-item exclusion compares against the unenchanted item

AU’s base-item exclusion subtracts the .0 price for the same item and quality from the selected source. It is available for enchanted items. It does not mean “subtract the previous enchantment level,” and it does not independently calculate a full enchanting route.

For example, if an enchanted item is priced at 18,000 and its .0 counterpart at 11,000, the price difference is 7,000. That is not 7,000 profit: upgrade ingredients and other costs still have to be accounted for. If upgrade costs exceed the difference, the route may lose silver.

When combining exclusions, be clear about the question. A .0 price can already reflect the value of an artifact. Subtracting both the .0 price and an artifact cost is a mathematical filter, not necessarily a faithful model of a transaction. Inspect the selected adjustments rather than reading every adjusted value as money you could earn.

Move from a ranking to an actual production decision

Take the shortlisted item to the relevant calculator. Check the real recipe, ingredient prices, return rate, focus, station charge, tax, and output-quality assumptions. For an enchanting idea, compare the upgrade costs with the item-price difference instead of treating crafting and enchanting as the same process.

Then consider whether enough demand exists. A rarely traded item can rank highly because of an optimistic listing or a small number of observations. Producing a large batch creates a selling problem that a normalized unit value cannot solve.

A ranking can change when you switch from a four-week average to current buy orders. Neither view is automatically wrong: they answer different questions. Use historical windows to research candidates and executable offers to check an immediate trade.

Check the same assumptions each time

Keep the overview and the detailed calculator on the same server and market context. Differences in settings often explain why two screens appear to disagree.

1. Choose the equipment group and lock tier, enchantment, quality, city, and source before comparing candidates.
2. Start with full prices. Enable one adjustment at a time and inspect why the ordering changed.
3. Check component observations and material counts. Investigate missing or unexpectedly large values.
4. Open the appropriate calculator to include the actual production costs and character settings.
5. Verify in-game prices, available quantity, and selling demand before committing silver to the shortlist.