Grade comparison

254 SMO vs 6XN

254 SMO and 6XN are compared here on every property both data files carry, with the evidence level of each value shown and rows we cannot compare honestly marked as not comparable rather than forced into a verdict. Where one side has no sourced value, the cell says so.

Last verified 19 August 2026.


The comparison

Property254 SMO6XNEvidence
Proof strength Rp0.2, minimum (EN)320 MPa300 MPaE3 E3
Tensile strength Rm, minimum650 MPa650 MPaE3 E3
Elongation A, minimum35 %40 %E3 E3
PREN43 —45 —E3 E3
Density8.0 g/cm³8.1 g/cm³E3 E3
Modulus of elasticity195 GPa195 GPaE3 E3
Thermal conductivity14 W/(m·K)12 W/(m·K)E3 E3

Proof strength Rp0.2, minimum (EN) — different product forms — cold rolled coil and sheet against Quarto plate. The grades differ and so does what was tested, so the gap between these two numbers is not all material

Tensile strength Rm, minimum — different product forms — cold rolled coil and sheet against Quarto plate. The grades differ and so does what was tested, so the gap between these two numbers is not all material

Elongation A, minimum — different product forms — cold rolled coil and sheet against Quarto plate. The grades differ and so does what was tested, so the gap between these two numbers is not all material


Where each side’s numbers come from

See 254 SMO and 6XN — each page lists every source, every demotion and every gap. Nothing on this page is derived from anything not on those two, and our coverage limits are stated separately.

Where a PREN appears above, read it as a ranking number rather than a qualification: what PREN can and cannot tell you.


When to choose which

254 SMO. Seawater and strong chloride service where a single-phase austenitic is wanted rather than a duplex — because the part runs hot, because it must stay non-magnetic, or because the shop is set up for austenitic fabrication and not for phase-balance control. Desalination, seawater cooling, bleaching plant and offshore piping are the recurring uses.

6XN. Seawater and brine handling in plate form — condenser and heat exchanger shells, desalination vessels, offshore process equipment. Its high nickel gives it better resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking than the standard austenitics, and being single phase it has no phase balance to hold during welding, unlike the super duplex alternatives.

Against 254 SMO: Price and strength per unit cost. At six percent molybdenum the alloy content is expensive, and 2507 reaches the same pitting ranking with far more proof strength, so a strength-driven seawater part is usually cheaper in super duplex. Segregation on solidification also makes weld metal the weak point unless an overmatching filler is used.

Against 6XN: Price, weight and heat transfer. It is one of the most expensive stainless alloys per tonne, it is the densest in its family so a plate structure is heavier, and its thermal conductivity is among the lowest, which costs area in a heat exchanger. Where a duplex can be used, it usually is.


What this comparison does not cover

  • Critical pitting and crevice temperatures are not established here, and they are what the alloy is selected on.
  • Weld metal corrosion behaviour, which is where this alloy family usually fails first.
  • Elevated temperature strength, fatigue and fracture toughness.
  • Composition limits, not established.
  • Whether a super duplex is the better answer for your part. This page gives you the numbers, not the decision.
  • Only plate minima are established here.
  • Critical pitting and crevice temperatures, which decide seawater selection.
  • Weld metal properties, which for a segregating super-austenitic are the weak point.

Generated from data/materials/254smo.yaml and 6xn.yaml.