Comparison calculator
Compare the coating with polystyrene and mineral wool
A model comparison of investment, savings, and payback. The coating's greatest advantage shows where minimal thickness, less intervention in the building, and a lower investment in details matter.
Enter your building's parameters
200 m²
The calculator models a scenario including the investment, payback speed, and the technical advantages of a thin-layer solution.
Comparison result
vs. polystyrene
29% faster
vs. mineral wool
33% faster
Investment comparison
ROI curve over time
TILIA
Polystyrene
Mineral wool
TILIA
8.1 years
Polystyrene
11.4 years
Mineral wool
12.1 years
The coating comes out as the strongest solution
A lower investment, faster payback, and minimal intervention in the structure.
A lower investment, faster payback, and minimal intervention in the structure.
Where the coating makes the most sense
The strongest argument is rarely just insulation, but the overall impact on the building
A thin-layer solution combines less volume, less added load, less intervention in the details, and often a faster path to the finished result.
01
Details and thickness
When every extra centimeter complicates the reveals, parapet, flashing elements, or the articulation of the facade, a thin-layer solution tends to be considerably more practical.
02
Weight and added load
Low density and a minimal layer help where you do not want to, or cannot, put significant load on the structure.
03
Speed of intervention
With no boards glued across the entire surface and no significant growth in details, some projects can be completed faster and more cleanly.
Table comparison
Comparing the technologies in terms of investment, details, and operation
This table is built for real investor decision-making, not just for a laboratory debate.
| Parameter | TILIA coating | Polystyrene | Mineral wool |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront investment with complex details | often lower or considerably more efficient | often grows due to details and junctions | often grows due to details and installation |
| System thickness | minimal layer | significant thickness | significant thickness |
| Weight on the structure | low | medium | higher |
| Suitability for complex architectural details | very strong | often problematic | often problematic |
| Damp walls / condensation risk | often the more suitable solution | not every build-up is suitable | depends on the system |
| Speed of application | fast | medium | medium to slower |
| Suitability for heritage-sensitive buildings | strong advantage | often unsuitable | often unsuitable |
This model comparison is intended for commercial and investment orientation. The final design always depends on the building type, the substrate, and the goal of the project.
Model case study
An apartment building with complex details and overheating top-floor units
A typical example where conventional thick insulation starts running into details, budget, and the impact on the building's appearance.
Starting situation
- facade and detail area: 240 m²
- overheating in the top-floor apartments
- limited space at reveals and sills
- an effort to minimize the impact on the building's appearance
- a requirement for fast completion without major construction work
Lower investment pressure
With complex details, a thin-layer solution can come out considerably better than a heavy build-up.
Lower weight
A strong argument for sensitive structures, lighter roofs, and problematic junctions.
Less intervention in details
Reveals, parapets, sills, and flashing elements tend to be simpler than with thick insulation.
A strong retrofit solution
Works well where you do not want to launch a major construction project.
Want a no-obligation quote?
It takes 2 minutes
No-obligation inquiry