✓ Confirmed
“Enfocus says Griffin's true-shape nesting and gang-run printing cut material costs by up to 50%.”
Copied
The first check said the Griffin page gives up to 50% only for waste and lists cutting costs as a separate benefit without a percentage. The live page states the claim as worded: under 'Why print professionals choose Griffin' it says True Shape Nesting and gang-run printing cut material costs by up to 50%. Enfocus's own figure, with no stated method; the rating confirms what Enfocus says, not that the saving is typical.
This verdict was revised on , against enfocus.com. It was published as ◐ Partly true. The reasoning it was published with is below, unedited.
As first published
Enfocus's own Griffin page attributes an 'up to 50%' figure to true-shape nesting, but it is phrased as a waste reduction, not a material-cost reduction, and the source separately lists cutting costs as a distinct benefit without a percentage. The page does describe combining multiple jobs on one sheet/roll, which resembles gang-run printing, but it never uses that term, so the claim's wording is a loose paraphrase rather than a verbatim match.
The span it rests on
Reduce waste by up to 50%
Sources
Where the claim appeared
Re-checks
- ◐ Partly true → ✓ Confirmed
The first check said the Griffin page gives up to 50% only for waste and lists cutting costs as a separate benefit without a percentage. The live page states the claim as worded: under 'Why print professionals choose Griffin' it says True Shape Nesting and gang-run printing cut material costs by up to 50%. Enfocus's own figure, with no stated method; the rating confirms what Enfocus says, not that the saving is typical.
“True Shape Nesting and gang-run printing squeeze more out of every sheet or roll, cutting material costs by up to 50%”
enfocus.com →
Issue pulse · section queue · last checked 2026-10-08