Toner pad packs differ 1.3× in price, 3.1× per sheet
Compare toner pad quotes by the tub and the products look interchangeable. In Olive Young's pad top 30 yesterday the pack prices sat 1.3× apart, while the same two products were 3.1× apart per sheet. Five of the thirty do not state a sheet count at all.
Toner pads have to be compared per sheet, not per tub. In our daily Olive Young ranking data as of 13 October 2026, the pad top 30 includes a 100+100 sheet pack at roughly ₩143 per sheet and a 50 sheet single at ₩450 — a 3.1× gap. The two pack prices are only 1.3× apart.
A similar pack price does not mean a similar cost per sheet
Pad quotes usually arrive as a column of pack prices, and in that column the products look almost identical. We collect Olive Young category rankings every day, and as of 13 October 2026 the pad top 30 runs from ₩8,900 to ₩28,900 — a narrow spread for thirty products.
Divide by sheets and the picture separates. A ₩28,500 pack holding 100+100 sheets works out to about ₩143 per sheet, while a ₩22,500 pack of 50 sheets costs ₩450. The pack prices are 1.3× apart; per sheet the same two products are 3.1× apart. Consumers use pads by the sheet and a filling line is priced by the sheet, so the second number is the one being chosen between.
The second narrowest price band of 42 categories
For each of the 42 categories we divided the highest top-30 price by the lowest. Pads came out at 3.2×, behind only mists and oils at 2.7×. At the other end sits foot care at 72.5×.
A narrow band cuts both ways. There is little room to argue about where to place your price, and equally little room to differentiate with it. The pad median of ₩24,500 is almost the same as serums and ampoules at ₩24,300 — except that serums stretch from ₩7,600 to ₩143,650.
| Category | Median price | Low to high | Band width |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toner pads | ₩24,500 | ₩8,900–28,900 | 3.2× |
| Mists & oils | ₩21,500 | — | 2.7× |
| Serums & ampoules | ₩24,300 | ₩7,600–143,650 | 18.9× |
| Foot care | ₩10,950 | — | 72.5× |
Re-count by the sheet and the order changes
We calculated cost per sheet only where the product name states a sheet count we can add up. Bonus and refill sheets named on the pack were included; wording such as "double pack" that leaves the total unstated was left out.
View as table
| 100+100 sheets | 143KRW |
|---|---|
| 100 + 3x10 sheets | 148KRW |
| 80 + 80 refill | 166KRW |
| 100 sheets, single | 185KRW |
| 70 + 70 refill | 189KRW |
| 60 sheets, single | 443KRW |
| 50 sheets, single | 450KRW |
The pack-price order and the per-sheet order do not agree. A ₩26,600 pack of 60 sheets costs ₩443 a sheet, while a more expensive ₩28,500 pack costs ₩143. Leave the sheet count off a quote and those two line up as near neighbours. Five of the thirty print no count at all — sold as "pick 1 of 3" or "4 variants" — so no unit price can be derived from the listing.
| Group | Products | Price per sheet |
|---|---|---|
| Bonus and refill sheets stated | 11 | ₩143–293 |
| Single pack, sheets stated | 8 | ₩185–450 |
| Total unstated ("double pack") | 6 | excluded |
| No sheet count given | 5 | not calculable |
The tub once, the contents many times
Eighteen of the thirty carry a bundle, 1+1 or gift marker in the product name. Eight of those include a refill pack and four add a plastic pad case. That splits the cost structure in two: tub, tweezers and outer label are paid once, and after that only the non-woven sheets and the essence are sold again.
Three lines in a quote settle it. Get the total sheet count as a number, have the tub, tweezers and case priced apart from the fill, and ask for the MOQ and unit price of a refill-only order — then quotes from different factories can sit in the same table. To line a category's price band up against an estimated cost, work it through in the product planner.
361,536 reviews already on the shelf
Part of why the pad band stays narrow sits in the review counts. On the same date the pad top 30 carried a median of 1,344 reviews, the highest of all 42 categories. Summed, the category holds 361,536 reviews against 76,201 for toners — 4.7 times as many.
Where a product with over 100,000 reviews occupies a slot, a newcomer has little room to price upward. Of the ten products that held a top 20 place across our tracking window from 16 July, two were pads, and the category recorded zero new entries yesterday. Shelf space here rarely comes free. For where pad-side ingredient demand is heading, the daily ingredient signal is updated every morning.
Summary
- Pack prices in the pad top 30 differ 1.3×, cost per sheet 3.1× (₩143 vs ₩450).
- Median listed price is ₩24,500 and the band is 3.2× wide, second narrowest of 42 categories.
- Where sheets are stated, per-sheet prices run ₩143–450; five products state no count.
- Eight of the thirty include a refill and four a case, splitting container cost from fill cost.
- The category's median review count is 1,344, the highest we track, with zero new entries yesterday.
*Source: our own daily collection of Olive Young category rankings. Ranking date 13 October 2026, collected 14 October 2026. 42 category top-30 lists; tracking window 16 July to 13 October 2026 (80 days). Cost per sheet is the listed price divided by the sheet count printed in the product name; products whose total count cannot be determined were excluded. Band width is each category's highest top-30 price divided by its lowest.*
Questions people ask
As of 13 October 2026 the median listed price is ₩24,500, with everything between ₩8,900 and ₩28,900. Top over bottom is 3.2×, the second narrowest band of the 42 categories we track.
Taking only the products whose name states a countable number of sheets, the range runs from ₩143 to ₩450. Large refill packs sit at the bottom; 50 to 60 sheet singles sit at the top.
Its top 30 carries a median of 1,344 reviews, the highest of the 42 categories. Added up, the category holds 361,536 reviews, 4.7 times the toner category's 76,201. That stock of reviews is hard for a new product to close in a few months.
Eight of the pad top 30 include a refill and four throw in a case. The tub is bought once and the contents repeatedly, so a quote that does not separate container from fill cannot be compared with another.