Should Burn Rate Be Compared in Grams Per Hour Rather Than Simply Total Hours?
Aktie
Votive jars ₹31.86 each · 200 ml jars ₹70.80 each Coconut soy CSI 468 from ₹325 / 500g Stocked in India · ships nationwide
CSI measurement guides · comparison
Two candles can both be forty-hour candles and have nothing else in common. Grams per hour is the only currency that notices.
★★★★★
"Soy pillar wax is really so good"
Jinal PatelVerified buyer · Sep 2025
Soy Pillar Wax
★★★★★
"The products are great and of premium quality…"
Manasa GNVerified buyer · Feb 2025
Premium Coconut Soy Wax
★★★★★
"Very good quality liquid dyes. Good vibrant colours in both luxury soy wax and coconut soy wax. I’m very happy with it."
Antara Srinivas IyerVerified buyer · Jun 2025
Candle Dye Liquid Purple
★★★★★
"Product quality is too good and the nature of the supplier is really helpful."
Chanpreet kaurMay 2024
Complete Candle Making Course Kit
★★★★★
"Coffee fragrance is quite strong and feels like yummy"
Arminder KaurVerified buyer · Apr 2026
Roasted Coffee Fragrance Oil
★★★★★
"Soy pillar wax is really so good"
Jinal PatelVerified buyer · Sep 2025
Soy Pillar Wax
★★★★★
"The products are great and of premium quality…"
Manasa GNVerified buyer · Feb 2025
Premium Coconut Soy Wax
★★★★★
"Very good quality liquid dyes. Good vibrant colours in both luxury soy wax and coconut soy wax. I’m very happy with it."
Antara Srinivas IyerVerified buyer · Jun 2025
Candle Dye Liquid Purple
★★★★★
"Product quality is too good and the nature of the supplier is really helpful."
Chanpreet kaurMay 2024
Complete Candle Making Course Kit
★★★★★
"Coffee fragrance is quite strong and feels like yummy"
Arminder KaurVerified buyer · Apr 2026
Roasted Coffee Fragrance Oil
Reviews collected and published through Judge.me on candlemakingsuppliesindia.store. One longer review is shortened with an ellipsis; wording is otherwise unedited.
✓ Stated loads and pour temperatures quoted per wax ✓ No CSI page publishes burn hours & this one does not either ✓ Bulk pricing & GST invoicing on WhatsApp
Candle Performance Guides · Comparison
Yes — and this is the argument the rest of this series is built on. Total hours is the product of three things you can each change independently, so two candles with the same hours can be completely different products, and two identical wicks can produce wildly different hours.
4.2×
the gap in total hours between a 120 g candle and a 500 g candle burning at the identical measured 7.5 g/h — 16.0 hours against 66.7 · nothing about the wick changed, only the jar · jars from ₹31.86, CSI live pricing, September 2026
Quick answers — read this first
Why can't I just compare hours? Because hours = usable wax ÷ burn rate, and only the second term tells you anything about your wick, wax or fragrance. At one unchanged 7.5 g/h, a 70 g votive runs 9.3 hours and a 500 g apothecary runs 66.7. Comparing those hours tells you which jar is bigger, which you already knew.Give me the reverse case. Three candles all claiming 30 hours: a 150 g at 5.0 g/h, a 225 g at 7.5 g/h, and a 300 g at 10.0 g/h. Identical claim, three different wick configurations, three different material costs, and — if the slow one got there by leaving wax on the glass — three different levels of honesty.
So hours are useless? No. Hours is what the customer buys and what goes on the label. It is just the wrong currency for development, because it mixes a decision you made at the pouring station with one you made at the wick.
What is the conversion rule? Usable wax ÷ measured rate = honest hours. Usable wax is what you weighed into the jar minus what the candle leaves behind — not the catalogue capacity, and not a figure in millilitres.
The short answer
Develop in grams per hour: it is the only term in the burn-time equation that your wick, wax, load and dye actually move. Everything else is a pouring decision.
Publish in hours, last: convert once, at the end, using usable wax rather than fill weight — and state what your figure assumes about session length and trimming.
Never compare hours across sizes: not between your own SKUs, not against a competitor's label. A bigger jar wins that comparison by existing.
In this guide
Top: one measured rate, six fills, a 10-fold spread in hours. Bottom: one hours figure, four candles that differ threefold in the wax they consume. Hours is the output; grams per hour is the input you control.
Stated 13% load · stated 58–60°C pour
Coconut Soy CSI 468 · 1 kg ₹650
Small end of the comparison
Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram · ₹31.86 each
Comparing two formulations?
Ask on WhatsApp
Straight answer
Should burn rate be compared in grams per hour rather than simply total hours?
Yes, and the reason is arithmetic rather than preference. Total hours = usable wax ÷ burn rate, which means an hours figure is carrying two pieces of information at once: how much wax you poured, and how fast the candle gets through it. Only the second is affected by your wick, your wax, your fragrance load or your dye — the first is a decision you made with a jug. So hours cannot separate a candle that lasts because it is efficient from one that lasts because it is large. Hold a measured 7.5 g/h absolutely constant and the same candle runs 9.3 hours at a 70 g fill, 16.0 at 120 g, 20.0 at 150 g, 26.7 at 200 g, 66.7 at 500 g and 93.3 at 700 g — a 4.2× gap between the 120 g and 500 g versions with nothing changed but the vessel. Run it the other way and the problem is worse: a 150 g candle at 5.0 g/h, a 225 g at 7.5, a 300 g at 10.0 and a 450 g at 15.0 are all exactly 30-hour candles, consuming three times as much material at one end as at the other. Any comparison made in hours would call those four equal. Grams per hour calls them what they are. Hours still matters — it is what your customer experiences and what a label carries — but it belongs at the end of the process, converted once from a measured rate against usable wax rather than fill weight, because a candle that stops with wax on the glass never delivered the hours its fill implied. Measure the rate first: weigh the whole candle before and after a timed session, then normalise it against your jar before you judge it.
One line: hours answers "how big is the jar?" as much as "how good is the candle?" — so develop in grams per hour and convert to hours exactly once, at the end, using usable wax.
A fair comparison needs two sizes poured from one wax: Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram at ₹31.86 each, Black Matte Glass Jar at ₹70.80 each, and Premium Coconut Soy Wax CSI 468 from ₹325 for 500 g with a stated 13% load.
Shop candle wax
The three-term equation behind every hours claim
Every burn-time claim ever printed is a division. Most arguments about burn time are arguments about the wrong half of it.
Write it out and the whole problem becomes visible:
Total burn hours = (fill weight − wax left behind) ÷ grams consumed per hour
Three inputs, and they come from three different parts of your operation. Fill weight is set at the pouring station and controlled by your scale. Wax left behind is set by the interaction of wick power, pool width and vessel shape, and is only knowable by burning one candle to extinction and weighing the jar. Grams per hour is set by the wick, the wax, the load, the dye and the way the candle is used. An hours figure is the quotient of all three, which is why it moves when any of them moves and why it cannot tell you which one did.
The three terms · who controls each, and what moves it
Why only one of the three is a formulation property
| Term | Set by | Changes when you… | Does it belong in a comparison of candles? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fill weight | Your pouring station and your scale | Change jar size, change fill level, pour inconsistently | No — it is a size decision, not a performance one |
| Wax left behind | Wick power against vessel geometry | Wick down, change jar shape, under-wick a wide jar | Yes, as a correction — it is wax the customer paid for and never used |
| Grams per hour | Wick, wax, load, dye, how it is burned | Change any raw material or any wick configuration | Yes — this is the comparison |
| Total hours (the quotient) | All three at once | Any of the above | Only between two candles of the identical size and fill |
That last row is the practical rule. Hours is a legitimate comparison only when fill weight is held identical — your new wick against your old wick in the same jar at the same fill. The moment the sizes differ, or the fills drift, or one candle leaves more behind than the other, hours stops being a measurement of anything you chose.
The mistake: benchmarking your 150 g candle against a 250 g candle's hours. It happens constantly, because labels advertise hours and almost never advertise fill weight or rate. If a competing 250 g candle claims 35 hours, that implies something close to 7 g/h on its full fill — which could be a perfectly ordinary wick in a bigger jar than yours. Your 150 g candle running 20 hours is at the same 7.5 g/h and is not worse at anything; it is smaller. You cannot know what their number measures — total fill or usable wax, one long session or many short ones, trimmed or untrimmed — which is exactly the case argued in my 200 g candle lasts 22 hours while competitors claim 35–40.
Same rate, six jars: the 4.2× problem
Hold the rate at a measured 7.5 g/h and change nothing but the vessel. Every row below uses a fill figure from a CSI jar page, so you can see how little of the variation has anything to do with the candle's design.
7.5 g/h across six stated CSI fills
Gross hours, and the ratio against the 120 g jar
| Vessel | Stated fill | Gross hours at 7.5 g/h | Ratio vs the 120 g jar | Price per jar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram | ~70 g wax fill | 9.3 h | 0.58× | ₹31.86 |
| Amber Shiny Glass Jar | 120 gm | 16.0 h | 1.00× | ₹47.20 |
| Clear Glass Jar with Golden Lid | ~150 gm | 20.0 h | 1.25× | ₹94.40 |
| Black Matte Glass Jar | 200 ml stated — weigh yours; 200 g assumed here | 26.7 h | 1.67× | ₹70.80 |
| Apothecary Jar (500 gm) | ~500 g | 66.7 h | 4.17× | ₹212.40 |
| Apothecary Jar (700 gm) | ~700 g | 93.3 h | 5.83× | ₹250.00 |
Worked out above: gross hours = stated fill ÷ 7.5 g/h. 70 ÷ 7.5 = 9.33 · 120 ÷ 7.5 = 16.00 · 150 ÷ 7.5 = 20.00 · 200 ÷ 7.5 = 26.67 · 500 ÷ 7.5 = 66.67 · 700 ÷ 7.5 = 93.33. Ratios divide each by the 16.00 h of the 120 g jar. The Black Matte jar's page states a "fill weight of 200 ml", not grams — 200 g is used here only to continue the arithmetic and you must weigh your own filled jar. Jar prices: votive ₹159.30 for 5 and ₹318.60 for 10 (₹31.86 each); Amber Shiny ₹47.20 for 1, ₹236 for 5; Clear Glass with Golden Lid ₹944 for 10, ₹1,888 for 20 (₹94.40 each); Black Matte ₹354 for 5, ₹708 for 10 (₹70.80 each); Apothecary ₹212.40 and ₹250. The 7.5 g/h is a reader-measured rate, not a CSI figure.
The ratio column is the whole point. A candle maker who switched from the 120 g jar to the 500 g apothecary and changed nothing else — same wax, same load, same wick family, same measured rate — would be able to advertise four times the burn time. Nothing about the candle got better. If hours were a performance measure, buying bigger glass would be a performance improvement, and obviously it is not.
The one case where hours is a fair comparison
Identical jar, identical fill weight, one variable changed. That is the controlled comparison, and inside it hours and grams per hour carry exactly the same information — because the fill term cancels. Use hours there if you prefer; it reads more naturally. The moment a second variable moves, go back to grams per hour. For the fragrance version of that experiment, see why two candles with the same wax weight and wick differ in hours when only the fragrance changes.Same hours, four completely different candles
Now run it backwards, because this is the direction that costs makers money. Fix the hours at 30 and ask what rate and fill would produce it. Four answers, all equally entitled to the same number on the label.
Four ways to build a 30-hour candle
Identical claim, threefold difference in material and wick power
| Measured rate | Usable wax needed for 30 h | Wick power implied | Material consumed per candle | What a customer notices |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.0 g/h | 150 g | Low — check it is reaching the glass | Least wax, smallest jar | Possibly a narrow pool and a weaker throw |
| 7.5 g/h | 225 g | Moderate | 1.5× the wax of the 5.0 g/h version | A noticeably bigger candle for the same hours |
| 10.0 g/h | 300 g | Higher — screen the flame carefully | 2× the wax | A large candle and probably a strong throw |
| 15.0 g/h | 450 g | High, or multi-wick | 3× the wax of the 5.0 g/h version | A substantial candle that dies at the same hour |
Worked out above: usable wax = 30 h × rate. 30 × 5.0 = 150 g · 30 × 7.5 = 225 g · 30 × 10.0 = 300 g · 30 × 15.0 = 450 g. Material ratios are against the 150 g case. Rates are illustrative reader measurements; no CSI page publishes a rate, and the wick-power column describes a direction to investigate rather than a specification.
Two of these four are commercially sensible and two are warnings. The 15.0 g/h version is paying three times the wax bill for the same advertised hours — that is the cost-per-hour problem this series takes up later. And the 5.0 g/h version is the one to be suspicious of, because the cheapest way to reach a low rate is to under-wick, and a candle that burns slowly because its pool never reaches the glass has not given the customer thirty hours of candle. It has given them thirty hours of a tunnel and a wall of wax they paid for. That distinction is the entire argument of a 50-hour candle that tunnels against a 35-hour candle that burns correctly.
Do not congratulate yourself on a falling rate. A rate that drops after a change is only good news if the candle still passes everything else: pool reaching the glass within a reasonable session, throw you would sell, residue you find acceptable, no drowning wick. Grams per hour is a measurement, not an objective — the objective is the most hours you can get while still producing the candle you intended. The failure mode at the slow end is set out in wicking down and losing the throw.
Four comparisons grams per hour makes possible
Switching currency is not an accounting nicety. It unlocks four decisions that hours simply cannot support.
A supplier change, tested honestly. A new wax or a new fragrance oil arrives, you pour the identical jar at the identical fill, and the rate moves. In hours that change is a muddle of fill variation and rate variation; in grams per hour it is one clean figure. This series treats a new oil or wax as a formulation change requiring full-life retesting — see should switching fragrance oil suppliers trigger a complete burn-time comparison.
One wick decision across a whole range. Measure a per-wick rate in one jar and you have a sensible starting point for a different size, which you then verify. Measure hours in one jar and you have a number that is meaningless in the next one.
Fragrance-by-fragrance testing without re-testing the jar. If two oils in the same vessel give different rates, you can see the difference per hour rather than inferring it from two total-life figures that also differ because one jar got 3 g more wax. Whether each SKU needs its own figure is taken up in should every fragrance SKU have its own burn-time test.
Cost per usable burn hour. This is the commercial payoff and it is impossible without a rate. Material cost per candle divided by usable hours lets you compare a dearer wax that lasts against a cheaper one that does not — the subject of comparing formulations by cost per usable burn hour.
The CSI principle
Hours is the answer. Grams per hour is the question. Only one of them can be improved on purpose.
A maker who works in hours ends up adjusting the jar, because that is the term that moves most easily. A maker who works in grams per hour ends up adjusting the wick, the wax and the load — which is the actual craft, and the only route to a candle that is better rather than bigger.
Where hours is the right currency
None of this makes hours a bad number. It makes it an output. There are exactly three places it belongs, and they all come after the measurement.
Which currency, where
The same candle, described two ways, for two audiences
| Situation | Use grams per hour | Use hours |
|---|---|---|
| Choosing between two wicks | ✓ the comparison itself | Only if the fill is identical |
| Qualifying a new wax or oil | ✓ one variable, one figure | — |
| Comparing two of your own sizes | ✓ the only fair way | ✗ the bigger jar always wins |
| Setting a QC range for production | ✓ measurable on a sample without burning the batch | — |
| Writing the label or product page | — | ✓ this is what the customer buys |
| Answering a customer's complaint | ✓ internally, against your log | ✓ in the conversation itself |
| Costing a formulation | ✓ to get to cost per usable hour | ✓ as the denominator, once converted |
When you do publish hours, publish them as something the customer can reproduce. A conservative figure or a tested range beats the best result you ever achieved, and it should say what it assumes — session length and wick trimming especially, since both move the result. Whether to print an exact figure or a range is argued in an exact burn time or an approximate range. On labelling requirements as such, take advice from a qualified adviser rather than a supplier's guide.
Converting a rate into honest hours
Five steps, and the third is the one everybody skips.
1
Weigh your actual fill, not the catalogue figureWeigh an empty jar, weigh it again full and cold, and subtract. Do this on three units and take the average. A page stating "~150 gm" or "200 ml" is a planning figure; your pouring station's real output is what the hours calculation needs, and it is usually a few grams off.
2
Measure the rate over the whole life, not one cycleWeigh at both ends of every sitting until the candle will not relight, then divide total grams consumed by total hours burned. A single cycle is not a rate, and a first cycle is the least representative one you will take.
3
Subtract the wax that never burnedWhen the candle dies, scrape and weigh the empty jar to find the residue. Usable wax = fill − residue. This is the step that separates an honest hours figure from an optimistic one, and it is the reason a long life achieved by under-wicking does not survive scrutiny. The full argument is in subtracting remaining wax from usable burn efficiency.
4
Divide, then round downUsable wax ÷ rate gives hours. Round down, not to the nearest number — the figure you publish should be one most customers beat, not one half of them miss. If your three units gave 19.1, 20.4 and 21.0 hours, the defensible statement is nearer the bottom of that spread than the middle.
5
Write down what the figure assumesSession length, trimming before each burn, a draught-free room. Those are the conditions you measured under, and stating them is what makes an hours claim reproducible rather than decorative. Keep the grams-per-hour figure in your own records — it is the number you will compare against the next time anything in the formulation changes.
Pouring the same wax into two sizes is the cleanest comparison you can run: CSI 468 5 kg at ₹3,185 (₹637/kg), votive jars at ₹31.86 each and 200 ml matte jars at ₹70.80 each. For recurring volumes above the listed packs, bulk pricing and GST invoicing are handled on WhatsApp.
Compare on WhatsApp
Pouring the comparison
To prove the argument on your own bench you need one wax and two fills. Pour both from the same melt, the same load and the same wick family, measure both rates, and watch the hours diverge while the grams per hour stay close.
1
One wax, two sizes · stated 13% ceiling
Premium Coconut Soy Wax CSI 468 (Flakes Form)
The wax to run a two-size comparison on, because its page states the numbers that have to stay constant across both pours: a fragrance load of up to 13%, a melting point of 50–53°C and a pour temperature of 58–60°C — markedly lower than the soy waxes, so your thermometer matters more, not less. It is one of the few CSI waxes whose listed per-kilo price steps down with volume: ₹650 a kilo at 1 kg and 500 g, falling to ₹637 at 5 kg and 10 kg. For a comparison you need roughly 1 kg to fill five 70 g votives and three 200 ml jars with margin. Arminder Kaur's review notes that "all the materials are high quality and ultimate fragrance range".
| Size | Price | Per kg | 200g candles @ 8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 g | ₹325 | ₹650 | ≈2 |
| 1 kg | ₹650 | ₹650 | ≈5 |
| 5 kg | ₹3,185 | ₹637 | ≈27 |
| 10 kg | ₹6,370 | ₹637 | ≈54 |
₹41.86 of wax in a 70 g candle at 8%, 1 kg pricing Buy CSI 468
2
The small fill · stated ~70 g
Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram
The cheapest honest data point in the catalogue at ₹31.86 a jar, flat across both listed packs. Its page states a capacity of ~70 g wax fill and does not state dimensions, so measure the pool yourself if you intend to normalise by area. At a measured 7.5 g/h a 70 g fill is about 9.3 gross hours — short, which is precisely what makes votives the fastest way to complete a full-life test. A full life in a votive takes three sittings instead of five, so a programme that would take a fortnight in a 150 g jar finishes in a long weekend. Pour five and you have five logs.
| Size | Price | Per piece |
|---|---|---|
| Pack of 5 | ₹159.30 | ₹31.86 |
| Pack of 10 | ₹318.60 | ₹31.86 |
₹31.86 per jar · ~9.3 gross hours at 7.5 g/h Buy votive jars
3
The large fill · stated in millilitres
Black Matte Glass Jar
The other end of the comparison at ₹70.80 a jar, flat across packs of 5 and 10, with stated dimensions of "Height 8 cm width 7 cm". Read its capacity carefully: the page states a "fill weight of 200 ml" — a volume, not a weight, and wax is not water. Weigh one filled jar before you put any number into an hours calculation. This is the single most common way an honest maker publishes a wrong figure, and it costs nothing to avoid. Be aware too that CSI lists several jars at these same stated dimensions and capacity — the frosted, glossy and white matte versions are all ₹70.80 a jar at "Height 8 cm width 7 cm" and 200 ml — and at least one of them is described inconsistently in its own body text, so order on the handle rather than the prose. Tina Lynette Lazaro Moganti's review of this one is simply "Very good".
| Size | Price | Per piece |
|---|---|---|
| Pack of 5 | ₹354 | ₹70.80 |
| Pack of 10 | ₹708 | ₹70.80 |
₹70.80 per jar · 7 cm stated width, 200 ml stated fill Buy the Black Matte jar
Priced above: Premium Coconut Soy Wax CSI 468 500 g ₹325, 1 kg ₹650, 5 kg ₹3,185 (₹637/kg), 10 kg ₹6,370 (₹637/kg). Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram ₹159.30 for 5, ₹318.60 for 10 — ₹31.86 each. Black Matte Glass Jar ₹354 for 5, ₹708 for 10 — ₹70.80 each. Wax in a 70 g candle at an 8% load = 64.4 g × ₹0.65/g = ₹41.86. CSI live pricing, September 2026.
Buying a bigger jar is not an improvement in burn time. It is an improvement in jar.
— CandleMakingSuppliesIndia
Why trust this guide
CANDLEMAKINGSUPPLIESINDIA supplies raw materials, not finished candles. It would suit us commercially if makers compared candles in hours, because the easiest way to add hours is to buy a bigger jar and more wax. We are telling you to compare in grams per hour instead — a currency in which a better wick can beat more material, and in which the cheapest improvement is often the one that uses less of what we sell.
Every price, dimension and capacity here comes from live CSI stock in September 2026 and links to the product page, where current pricing always takes precedence. Capacities are quoted exactly as stated, including the Black Matte jar's "fill weight of 200 ml" — a volume figure we have not converted to grams, and which you should establish by weighing. CSI 468's stated load, melting point and pour temperature are the product page's own. Every rate and hours figure on this page is arithmetic on a reader-measured rate: no CSI wax, wick or jar page publishes a burn time, a burn rate or hours per gram, and none is stated or implied for any CSI product here.
For bulk pricing, GST invoicing, MSDS or IFRA documentation, message us on WhatsApp at +91 7397976926.
Frequently asked questions
Why is grams per hour better than total burn hours for comparing candles?
Because hours is a quotient of three things and only one of them is a formulation property. Hours = (fill − residue) ÷ rate, so an hours figure carries your jar size and your pouring consistency along with your wick's behaviour. At one unchanged 7.5 g/h, the same candle design reads as 9.3 hours in a 70 g votive and 66.7 hours in a 500 g jar. Grams per hour isolates the term your wick, wax, load and dye actually move.
Can I ever compare two candles by total hours?
Yes, in one situation: identical jar, identical fill weight, one variable changed. There the fill term cancels and hours carries exactly the same information as the rate. The moment the sizes differ, or the fills drift by a few grams, or one candle leaves more wax behind than the other, hours stops being a comparison of anything you chose. Comparing hours against a competitor's label is never valid, because you cannot know what their figure measures.
How do I convert grams per hour into a burn time for my label?
Weigh your real fill, burn one unit to extinction, weigh the residue, then compute usable wax ÷ measured rate — and round down rather than to the nearest figure. A 150 g fill that leaves 11 g behind is 139 g of usable wax; at 7.5 g/h that is 18.5 hours, so you would not advertise 20. State what the figure assumes about session length and trimming, and test more than one unit before publishing anything.
Is a lower grams-per-hour figure always better?
No, and this is the trap at the slow end. The cheapest way to lower a rate is to under-wick, and a candle whose pool never reaches the glass has not given the customer more hours — it has given them a tunnel and a wall of wax they paid for and cannot use. A lower rate is only an improvement if the candle still reaches the glass in a reasonable session, still throws, still leaves an acceptable residue and still passes the safety screen.
My 150 g candle gives fewer hours than a competitor's 250 g candle. Am I doing something wrong?
Not necessarily — you may be making a smaller candle. A 250 g candle advertising 35 hours implies roughly 7 g/h across its full fill; your 150 g candle at 20 hours is at 7.5 g/h, which is the same ballpark of wick power in a smaller vessel. Convert both to rates before drawing any conclusion, and remember that you cannot verify the competitor's conditions. The comparison that matters is your candle against your own previous version.
Does CSI publish burn hours or grams per hour for its waxes?
No. No CSI wax, wick or jar page states a burn time, a burn rate or hours per gram, and nothing on this page estimates one. What the pages do publish is quoted here exactly: CSI 468's up to 13% load with a 50–53°C melt and 58–60°C pour, the votive jar's ~70 g stated fill, the Black Matte jar's 200 ml stated fill and 7 cm stated width, and the Apothecary jar's ~500 g to 700 g with an 85°C hot-pour limit. The rates in this guide are the reader's own measurements.
Change the currency, change the decision
Pour one wax into two sizes, measure both rates, and watch the hours lie while the grams per hour tell the truth.
Premium Coconut Soy Wax CSI 468 from ₹325 for 500 g with a stated 13% load and a 58–60°C pour, Clear Glass Votive Jars at ₹31.86 each with a stated ~70 g fill, Black Matte Glass Jars at ₹70.80 each with a stated 200 ml fill, and Eco Candle Wicks from ₹59 for 10. Message us for bulk pricing, GST invoicing and documentation.
Shop candle wax Ask on WhatsApp
Continue the read
- How do I measure grams of wax consumed per hour?
- Is 10 g per hour appropriate for my jar diameter and wick?
- Should remaining wax be subtracted from usable burn efficiency?
- How many candles can 1 kg of wax make?
- Best wax for jar candles in India
- Which fragrance families perform best in coconut-soy wax
- How much does it actually cost to start a candle business in India?
Editorial standards & sources
About this guide: Written by the CANDLEMAKINGSUPPLIESINDIA team. Product recommendations reflect the CSI range; the three-term equation, the same-rate and same-hours tables and the conversion procedure apply to any supplier's materials.Customer reviews: The five reviews at the top of this page are genuine, published Judge.me reviews left by CSI customers on their product pages. Names, star ratings, dates and products are as recorded by Judge.me; one longer review is shortened with an ellipsis and otherwise unedited.
Figures verified September 2026: Premium Coconut Soy Wax CSI 468 500 g ₹325, 1 kg ₹650, 5 kg ₹3,185, 10 kg ₹6,370 — ₹650/kg at 500 g and 1 kg, stepping to ₹637/kg at 5 kg and 10 kg; page states up to 13% fragrance load, melting point 50–53°C and pour 58–60°C. Clear Glass Votive Jar 70 gram ₹159.30 for 5, ₹318.60 for 10 (₹31.86 each) — page states "Capacity: ~70g wax fill", dimensions not stated. Black Matte Glass Jar ₹354 for 5, ₹708 for 10 (₹70.80 each) — page states "Height 8 cm width 7 cm" and a "fill weight of 200 ml". Amber Shiny Glass Jar with Black Lid ₹47.20 for 1, ₹236 for 5 — page states 6 cm diameter, 6.5 cm height, 120 gm capacity. Clear Glass Jar with Golden Lid (150 gram) ₹944 for 10, ₹1,888 for 20 (₹94.40 each) — ~150 gm fill, hot-pour up to 85°C. Apothecary Glass Candle Jar 500 gm ₹212.40, 700 gm ₹250 — ~500 g to 700 g fill, hot-pour up to 85°C. Eco Candle Wicks Thin (C1) ₹59 for 10. Loads and temperatures are product-page formulation figures, not regulatory limits. Arithmetic: hours = fill ÷ 7.5 g/h gives 9.33, 16.00, 20.00, 26.67, 66.67 and 93.33 hours at 70, 120, 150, 200, 500 and 700 g; the 500 g to 120 g ratio is 66.67 ÷ 16.00 = 4.17. The same-hours table solves usable wax = 30 h × rate, giving 150, 225, 300 and 450 g at 5.0, 7.5, 10.0 and 15.0 g/h. The 200 g used for the Black Matte jar is an assumption for the arithmetic only — its page states 200 ml, and makers must weigh a filled jar. Usable-hours example: 150 g fill − 11 g residue = 139 g ÷ 7.5 g/h = 18.5 h. Wax in a 70 g candle at 8% = 64.4 g × ₹0.65/g = ₹41.86. No CSI wax, wick or jar page publishes a burn time, a burn rate or hours per gram; every rate here is a reader measurement and no rate is stated or implied for any CSI product. Prices and availability change — the linked product pages are always authoritative.