RafMATCH Up
Which UPM Raflatac label material is the best match for each container? Drag and drop the product names into the corresponding area under each container and test your knowledge!

Already a films expert? Get your certificate »
  • VANISH™
  • PP
  • Raflex Plus
  • Raflex MDO
  • PE
    • Body lotion
      Product Name
    • Facial cleanser
      Product Name
    • Hand soap
      Product Name
    • Shampoo
      Product Name
    • Face cream
      Product Name
    • Overnight repair
      Product Name
    • Deodorant
      Product Name
    • Hair gel
      Product Name
    • Conditioner
      Product Name
    Correct
    VANISH™
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Correct
    PP
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.

    Things to consider: Although thicker than VANISH™ films, still provides no-label look.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Correct
    VANISH™
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.

    Things to consider: Label area needs to be contained to front flat panel. Rigid films will not conform to side curvature. No compound curves.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Correct
    PP
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.

    Things to consider: Label area needs to be contained to front flat panel. Rigid films will not conform to side curvature. Although thicker than VANISH™ films, still provides no-label look. No compound curves.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice. Note: If label size extends past compound curve, Raflex Plus would be better choice, but price still increases.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but price increases with conformable performance. For these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choices.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Correct
    VANISH™
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.

    Things to consider: Label must be sized so it can be placed between the curves at the top and bottom of the bottle in order to avoid long-term lifting and darting.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Correct
    PP
    Why?: Rigid film materials integrate seamlessly on this substrate and provide optimal no-label look.

    Things to consider: Label must be sized so it can be placed between the curves at the top and bottom of the bottle in order to avoid long-term lifting and darting. Although thicker than VANISH™ films, still provides no-label look.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but price increases with conformable performance. For these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choices.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, VANISH™ and PP are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: VANISH™ 92, VANISH™ 120, PP Clear or PP White.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Due to variation in container shape and size, ultra-thin rigid films will not conform to bottle curvature - lifting, darting and wrinkling can occur.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White and Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    PP
    Why?: For tall rigid pump bottles, PP and Raflex Plus products are recommended for optimal performance, as they are less rigid than VANISH™ films - but the label size and shape truly determines which material is the best fit. For larger-sized labels, Raflex Plus's higher level of conformability makes those products a better choice when compared to PP materials. PP is ideal for smaller-size labels on these containers.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White and Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    Raflex Plus
    Why?: For tall rigid pump bottles, PP and Raflex Plus products are recommended for optimal performance, as they are less rigid than VANISH™ films – but the label size truly determines which material is the best fit. For larger-sized labels, Raflex Plus's higher level of conformability makes those products a better choice when compared to PP materials. PP is ideal for smaller-size labels on these containers.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, PP and Raflex Plus are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, PP and Raflex Plus are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Rigid films like VANISH™ cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White, and Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    PP
    Why?: Standard shampoo bottles typically contain low viscosity liquids and have a fairly flat panel. Labels for these containers must have semi-squeezable properties, and both PP and Raflex Plus are a perfect fit to help prevent creasing and bubbling due to their conformability.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White, and Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    Raflex Plus
    Why?: Standard shampoo bottles typically contain low viscosity liquids and have a fairly flat panel. Labels for these containers must have semi-squeezable properties, and both PP and Raflex Plus are a perfect fit to help prevent creasing and bubbling due to their conformability.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White, and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, PP and Raflex Plus are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White, and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, PP and Raflex Plus are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend the following materials: PP Clear or PP White, and Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Rigid films like VANISH™ cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    PP
    Why not?: Semi-rigid films like PP cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    Raflex Plus
    Why?: Hair conditioner containers are normally wall-to-wall squeezable due to the high viscosity of the conditioner itself. Raflex Plus and Raflex MDO are both ideal choices for keeping high-end products looking their very best squeeze after squeeze.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex Plus.
    Correct
    Raflex MDO
    Why?: Hair conditioner containers are normally wall-to-wall squeezable due to the high viscosity of the conditioner itself. Raflex Plus and Raflex MDO are both ideal choices for keeping high-end products looking their very best squeeze after squeeze.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?:Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, Raflex Plus and Raflex MDO are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex Plus.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Rigid films like VANISH™ cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO.
    Incorrect
    PP
    Why not?: Semi-rigid films like PP cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Bottles like the one seen here are also usually wall-to-wall squeezable, and typically contain lotion or similar-type products. However, these bottles present twice the amount of curve that a label must conform to when compared to other wall-to-wall flat panel bottles. Because of the wider body shape, regular Raflex Plus products may not perform properly on these containers.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO.
    Correct
    Raflex MDO
    Why?: Bottles like the one seen here are also usually wall-to-wall squeezable, and typically contain lotion or similar-type products. However, these bottles present twice the amount of curve that a label must conform to when compared to other wall-to-wall flat panel bottles. Because of the wider body shape, we recommend Raflex MDO to keep branding intact throughout the product life cycle, as these materials offer improved squeezability on thicker-width bottles with twice the amount of curve.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO.
    Incorrect
    PE
    Why not?: Will still conform to container shape and size, but for these container types, Raflex Plus and Raflex MDO are the most economical choice.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Rigid films like VANISH™ cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO and PE materials.
    Incorrect
    PP
    Why not?: Semi-rigid films like PP cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO and PE materials.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Bottles like this feature a compound curve and also require full wall-to-wall squeezability based on the types of liquids they normally contain. The difference here is that a full squeeze is needed at the bottom of the bottle where the curve is wider. Raflex Plus will cause long-term label darting and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO and PE materials.
    Correct
    Raflex MDO
    Why?: Bottles like this feature a compound curve and also require full wall-to-wall squeezability based on the types of liquids they normally contain. The difference here is that a full squeeze is needed at the bottom of the bottle where the curve is wider. Therefore, we recommend Raflex MDO and PE, due to their excellent flexibility and conformability on contoured container shapes.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO and PE materials.
    Correct
    PE
    Why?: Bottles like this feature a compound curve and also require full wall-to-wall squeezability based on the types of liquids they normally contain. The difference here is that a full squeeze is needed at the bottom of the bottle where the curve is wider. Therefore, we recommend Raflex MDO and PE, due to their excellent flexibility and conformability on contoured container shapes.
    For this container type, we would recommend: Raflex MDO and PE materials.
    Incorrect
    VANISH™
    Why not?: Rigid films like VANISH™ cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: PE.
    Incorrect
    PP
    Why not?: Semi-rigid films like PP cannot withstand a high number of squeezes or conform to contoured or fully squeezable containers without dimensionally distorting. This can lead to warped print and graphics, label creasing and edge-lifting.
    For this container type, we would recommend: PE.
    Incorrect
    Raflex Plus
    Why not?: Due to the unique challenges of tube labeling Raflex Plus may not provide the high level of conformability needed for these fully squeezable containers.
    For this container type, we would recommend: PE.
    Incorrect
    Raflex MDO
    Why not?: Due to the unique challenges of tube labeling Raflex MDO may not provide the high level of conformability needed for these fully squeezable containers.
    For this container type, we would recommend: PE.
    Correct
    PE
    Why?: Tube labeling can present its own unique challenges, and tube labels must be fully squeezable. Our PE materials are highly robust, fully flexible and conformable, and will endure the heaviest of wall-to-wall squeezes.
    For this container type, we would recommend: PE.
    If you are interested in more Home & Personal Care materials, check out our landing page and brochure for more information »
    Need technical support for material selections based on your container types? Our technical product consulting experts are readily available to give advice and provide product recommendations to meet your needs! Every project is different and we want to make sure you get the best results! Give them a call today toll-free at 1-866-294-8412 or send an email to americas.support@upmraflatac.com.