As of 4 October 2026, North American yard-reported 304 stainless steel scrap sits at $0.42/lb on the iScrapApp national average, with individual transactions spanning $0.30–$0.47/lb across the prior 90 days [S4]. The 316 buy-price index on ScrapMonster is posted at $0.58/lb, a roughly 38% premium over the 304 figure on the same source [S7]. That ratio is narrower than the 20–30% gap some recyclers cite for finished alloy, but it tracks with 316's higher alloying load, roughly 16–18% Cr, 10–14% Ni, plus 2–3% Mo versus 304's 18–20% Cr and 8–10.5% Ni [S1][S6].
For a process engineer weighing whether to separate mixed loads, the answer is mechanical, not chemical: 316 is non-magnetic like 304, so a magnet test only rules out carbon steel, and the two austenitic grades cannot be reliably distinguished without an XRF analyzer [S1][S4]. The price differential only realises when the yard accepts and bills the load as 316, which is why yard pricing is the variable that matters, not the underlying material cost.
Where the Numbers Come From: Index, Yard, and Retail Tiers
The ScrapMonster US buy-price index lists 304 stainless solid scrap at $0.38/lb and 316 solid scrap at $0.58/lb, a flat $0.20/lb spread that has held through the most recent reporting window [S7]. iScrapApp's 4 October 2026 national average for 304 is $0.466/lb (their table format) and recent individual yard prints range $0.30/lb (Armor Metals, Pennsauken NJ) to $0.47/lb (Premier Recycling, Mississauga ON) [S4]. At the retail end, Okon Recycling quotes 304 in the $0.32–$0.35/lb range and 316 above that, while Clifton Metals' 23 September 2025 retail-versus-wholesale breakdown puts small-lot 304 at $0.25–$0.40/lb and bulk loads at $0.40–$0.60/lb or higher [S2][S3].
Converting the iScrapApp October 2026 average to metric, $0.466/lb is approximately $1.03/kg at 2.2046 lb/kg. That falls inside the Melbourne retail range of A$0.80–$1.20/kg for 304 and well under the A$1.50–$1.80/kg band for 316, once you account for the AUD/USD differential and the fact that Australian retail pricing tends to be quoted higher than US yard index numbers [S1][S4]. For anyone modelling per-kg budgets, working in $0.90–$1.10/kg for clean 304 turnings and $1.20–$1.40/kg for clean 316 turnings is a defensible midpoint across the sources.
What Drives the 304 to 316 Premium
316 scrap runs 20–30% above 304 on average, with the lift attributed to higher chromium, higher nickel, and the molybdenum addition that gives 316 its chloride and acid resistance [S6]. The chemistry is well documented: 316 contains roughly 2–3% Mo against essentially zero in 304, and that Mo is the single largest cost contributor in the finished alloy, which then flows back into scrap valuation through the ISRI mill-buy schedule [S1][S6]. A separate long-form 2025 reference puts the finished-mill premium for 316 over 304 at $1,500–$1,700 per ton, on a base of $2,000–$3,000/ton for 304 plate, which is consistent with the 50–80% scrap-side premium seen on the index [S5].
Nickel is the swing variable. LME nickel pricing directly governs 300-series scrap valuations, and 316's higher Ni loading (about 10–14% versus 8–10.5% in 304) means a $1,000/ton nickel move shifts 316 scrap faster than 304 [S1][S5]. A recycler who can guarantee a sorted 316 load to a melt shop therefore captures both the Mo premium and the higher Ni credit, which is why the index spread (currently 0.58 vs 0.38, or about +52%) sits above the typical 20–30% spread quoted in retail recycling guides [S6][S7].
Side-by-Side: 304 vs 316 Scrap on Decision Criteria
Per-pound index price (US, 6 Oct 2026): 304 at $0.38–$0.47/lb; 316 at $0.58/lb [S4][S7]. Premium of 316 over 304: roughly 23–53% across the same source window. Typical Cr/Ni/Mo content: 304 at 18–20% Cr, 8–10.5% Ni, 0% Mo; 316 at 16–18% Cr, 10–14% Ni, 2–3% Mo [S1]. Magnetism: both austenitic, both non-magnetic, so a magnet alone cannot sort them [S1][S4]. Common end-of-life sources for 304: kitchen sinks, dishwashers, machine-shop turnings, automotive exhaust components, kegs, medical equipment housings [S1][S4]. Common 316 sources: marine fittings, pharmaceutical process piping, chemical tanks, coastal architectural hardware [S1][S5].
Identification cost: a handheld XRF analyzer, where the yard has one, eliminates the mis-sort risk and lets a seller price a load as 316 instead of 304. Without XRF, most mixed loads default to the 304 price, which costs the seller the 20–50% premium even when the chemistry is right [S1][S4]. Visual sorting by colour tone (warmer shine for austenitic 300, cooler for ferritic 400) is useful only to separate 304 from 430, not 304 from 316 [S3].
Use Cases: Who Should Separate, Who Should Pool
Demolition contractors, plant-decommissioning crews, and machine shops with known tooling history should sort 316 explicitly, because a single truck of clean 316 versus the same truck logged as 304 is a $300–$400/ton difference at the 4 October 2026 spread [S4][S7]. Food-processing and pharmaceutical facilities are the most likely 316 generators, and their process-piping tags normally allow clean separation without XRF [S1]. Restaurants, office fit-outs, and household appliance streams are predominantly 304, and the cost of XRF verification rarely pays back at the volumes involved; pooling at the 304 rate is the rational call [S3][S4].
Wholesale clients delivering 10+ ton sorted loads should negotiate a per-load agreement with their yard rather than accept spot index pricing, because both 304 and 316 premiums scale with volume and grade purity [S2]. Retail sellers with a few hundred kilograms of mixed kitchenware are best served by accepting the yard's posted 304 rate and skipping the analytical step, since the XRF cost or the per-load sorting fee usually exceeds the realised 316 premium at that scale [S2][S4].
Limits, Failure Modes, and What the Numbers Don't Tell You
The index and yard prices are buy-side, not sell-side; a processor selling to a mill broker sees a further haircut of 5–15% depending on freight, container size, and the broker's own margin [S2]. Contamination is the largest single value-killer: paint, oil, plastic insulation, attached mild-steel brackets, or mixed-aluminium fittings can drop a load from 304 to a "stainless mix" category that pays at the bottom of the published range, often $0.25–$0.30/lb [S2][S4]. Radiators, catalytic converters, and computer housings are common look-alikes that scrap-metal app listings warn against throwing into a stainless load [S4].
Per-ton finished-mill pricing and per-pound scrap pricing should not be conflated. The $2,000–$3,000/ton 304 plate range and the $3,500–$4,000/ton 316 plate range cited in 2025 references refer to new-mill product, not scrap, and using them to value a skip of cuttings will overstate revenue by roughly a factor of five [S5]. For scrap budgeting, stick to the $0.30–$0.60/lb band for North America and the A$0.80–$2.00/kg band for Australia, then adjust for grade and load purity [S1][S2][S4][S7].
Sourcing, Standards, and Trackable Signals
No ASTM, ISO, or ISRI standard is cited in the source material for these prices, and the numbers are market observations rather than regulated benchmarks; ISRI is referenced only for the role stainless scrap plays in the chromium and nickel balance of new melts [S2]. Trackable signals for the next 30–90 days are the LME nickel spot, the ScrapMonster weekly index tick (both 304 and 316 columns), and the iScrapApp national-average print, which last moved within a 30% band between 30 May 2026 and 14 August 2026 on a per-yard basis [S4][S7]. A nickel-price drop flagged in late-2025 commentary, if it lands, should compress the 304-316 spread at the mill level before it shows up in yard buy prices [S5].
For readers cross-checking material chemistry, the stainless steel and stainless pipe reference pages lay out the 300-series grade family and the role of Mo in chloride service, which is the property 316 is actually being paid a premium for at the scrap gate. Related alloy-selection context for 304 versus 2205 duplex appears in the 304 vs 2205 yield-strength comparison, and the cheaper 201 nickel-cut substitute is covered in 201 vs 304 stainless steel, which explains why some loads marked as 304 are actually 201 and pay a noticeably lower scrap rate.
Spec-level background on the components involved: pressure transmitter.