Is SodaStream *Actually* Cheaper? Decoding the "Razor and Blade" Math

Home sparkling water makers, like the SodaStream Jet, are marketed on three promises: convenience, environmentalism, and cost. For many, that third promise is the most confusing.

How can a system that requires a machine purchase and ongoing, “proprietary” refills really be cheaper?

The answer lies in the “razor and blades” business model. To understand if it’s “worth it,” you have to decode the math.

The “Razor”: The Upfront Cost

The “razor” is the machine itself. This is your one-time, upfront investment. A manual, non-electric model like the Jet is a “cordless design” that’s relatively affordable. Often, it’s sold in a “bundle” that includes the machine, bottles, and one or two CO2 cylinders to get you started.

The “Blade”: The Ongoing Cost

The “blade” is the 60L CO2 cylinder. This is the ongoing, recurring cost that makes the system profitable.

As many users discover, these cylinders “aren’t cheap,” and they feature a “proprietary valve.” This means you cannot refill them just anywhere. You are locked into the company’s ecosystem, exchanging your empty cylinder for a discount on a full one (at places like Target or Staples, as one user noted).

The Math: Your “Cost-Per-Liter” Break-Even Framework

So, is it “more economical,” as some users claim? Let’s do the math.

• The Blade Cost: One 60L CO2 cylinder exchange typically costs around $15.
• Cost-Per-Liter (SodaStream): That $15 gets you “up to 60 liters” of carbonation. This puts your cost at ~$0.25 per liter.
• Cost-Per-Liter (Store-Bought): A 2-liter bottle of store-brand seltzer costs around $1.00, or ~$0.50 per liter. (This is a very conservative estimate; name-brand cans are far more expensive).

In this conservative example, you are saving $0.25 on every liter you drink.

Now, let’s find your break-even point on an $80 machine bundle: * $80 (Machine Cost) / $0.25 (Savings Per Liter) = 320 Liters

You would need to drink 320 liters of sparkling water before the machine has officially paid for itself and you are “in the green.”

The X-Factor: The “Cost” of Waste

This math ignores the “soft” costs that many users find are the real value: * Environmental: You are saving “on all the plastic bottles” (Debra). * Convenience: You avoid “lugging heavy bottles into the house” (Annette).

Conclusion: Is it cheaper? Yes, absolutely—but only if you are a consistent sparkling water drinker. If you drink 3-4 liters a week, you will break even in about two years and save money every day after. If your machine just “sits in a cupboard,” you’ve lost money.