## Traditional Absorption Costing vs Activity Based Costing (ABC)
Both systems aim to charge overheads to products, but they route those overheads through very different paths.
### The core difference in flow
- Traditional Absorption Costing: Overheads are first collected in cost centres (Production & Service Centres) and then absorbed into cost objects (products/jobs).
- ABC: Overheads are first grouped into activities / cost pools and then assigned to cost objects using cost drivers.
```
Traditional: Overheads -> Cost Centres -> Cost Objects
ABC: Overheads -> Activities / Cost Pools -> Cost Objects
```
### Point-by-point comparison
| # | Activity Based Costing | Traditional Absorption Costing |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overheads related to activities, grouped into activity cost pools | Overheads related to cost centres/departments |
| 2 | Costs traced to activities — more realistic of cost behaviour | Costs traced to cost centres — not realistic of cost behaviour |
| 3 | Activity-wise cost drivers are determined | Time (hours) assumed to be the only cost driver in all departments |
| 4 | Activity-wise recovery rates; no single OH recovery rate | Either multiple departmental rates or a single blanket OH rate |
| 5 | Costs assigned to cost objects (customers, products, services, departments) | Costs assigned to cost units (products, jobs, hours) |
| 6 | Unnecessary activities can be eliminated → aids cost control | Cost centres/departments cannot be eliminated → not suitable for cost control |
### Cost allocation basis
- Traditional: allocation based on machine hours, labour hours, volume, etc.
- ABC: allocation based on the relevant cost driver for each activity.
### Why it matters
Because traditional costing assumes hours/volume drive all overheads, it tends to over-cost high-volume simple products and under-cost low-volume complex products. ABC corrects this by matching each pool of cost to the activity that actually causes it.