compromise on quality for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "compromise on quality for" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing situations where a trade-off is made, particularly in relation to maintaining quality in exchange for something else, such as cost or time. Example: "We cannot compromise on quality for the sake of reducing expenses; our customers expect the best."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Formal & Business

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

1 human-written examples

The Power Pressure Cooker XL is ideal for the busy, time-strapped person that doesn't want to compromise on quality for convenience.

HuffPost

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

59 human-written examples

His unwillingness to compromise on quality means that the chilies for Sriracha need to be processed within a day of being picked.

Huffington Post

"The wealthy are not going to economise on good taste .Luca Virgilio, who runs the Hotel Metropole in Monaco, says it would be a mistake for him to compromise on quality; clients visit the hotel precisely because it is luxurious.

The Economist

Third, there will always be a temptation to go for numbers, and compromise on quality, instead of investing in building generous, healthy, low-energy homes and resilient neighbourhoods that meet people's (diverse) needs, and really allow them to put down roots.

The Guardian - Opinion

In fact, because the company has for decades refused to compromise on quality, there are orthopedic surgeons who use nothing but Crescordia hardware.

Harvard Business Review

Some of these TVs are made specifically just for Black Friday, and may compromise on quality to get a low price.

Huffington Post

"The Italian man is still spending as much as he ever did," she said, "and he's never going to compromise on quality, and will never, as a result, abandon high fashion for the high street".

The New York Times

It's tempting to describe it as the River Café without the bells and whistles, though the prices – teens for starters, nose-bleeding for mains – speak of a similar refusal to compromise on quality.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

Openness for us doesn't mean we have to compromise on quality or ease of use.

TechCrunch

"We won't compromise on quality.

The New York Times - Food

Did we have to compromise on quality?

The Guardian - Money

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "compromise on quality for", clearly state what the trade-off is. For example, "We won't "compromise on quality for" the sake of lower costs, as customer satisfaction is paramount."

Common error

Avoid using "compromise on quality for" without specifying what benefit is being gained. Leaving the reason implicit can make the statement sound purely negative. Always clarify what is being prioritized over quality.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "compromise on quality for" acts as a prepositional phrase that modifies a verb. It indicates a situation where quality is deliberately reduced or sacrificed in exchange for a specific benefit or goal. As Ludwig AI reports, the phrase is usable in written English, and the examples, though limited, show its use in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

33%

Formal & Business

33%

Science

17%

Less common in

Wiki

17%

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "compromise on quality for" is a prepositional phrase indicating a deliberate trade-off where quality is sacrificed for another goal. Ludwig AI confirms its correct usage in written English. Though grammatically sound, it is a relatively rare expression. Its usage appears most commonly in news, business, and science contexts, suggesting a neutral to professional register. When using this phrase, it is crucial to clearly state what benefit is being prioritized over quality to avoid negative connotations. As confirmed by Ludwig, similar phrases include "sacrifice quality for" and "trade off quality for".

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

sacrifice quality for

Emphasizes the act of giving up quality for something else, implying a deliberate choice.

trade off quality for

Highlights the exchange of quality for another benefit, like cost savings.

accept lower quality for

Indicates a willingness to settle for a reduced level of quality in return for something else.

lower standards for

Suggests a reduction in acceptable quality levels to achieve a different goal.

reduce quality to gain

Focuses on the active reduction of quality in order to obtain a specific advantage.

cut corners on quality for

Implies a reduction in effort and resources dedicated to maintaining quality, often for expediency.

diminish quality in exchange for

Emphasizes the lessening of quality as a direct result of receiving something else.

relax quality control for

Suggests loosening the measures in place to ensure quality, allowing for lower standards.

weaken quality to

Directly states a weakening of the quality attribute to meet certain requirements.

impair quality for

Indicates quality is being negatively affected in exchange for something.

FAQs

How can I rephrase "compromise on quality for"?

Alternatives include "sacrifice quality for", "trade off quality for", or "reduce quality to gain", depending on the specific context.

Is it always negative to "compromise on quality for" something?

Not necessarily. Sometimes, "compromising on quality" may be a strategic decision to achieve other important goals, like affordability or speed of delivery, provided the implications are carefully considered.

What does it mean to "compromise on quality for" a lower price?

It means accepting a lower standard of quality in a product or service in order to reduce its cost. This could involve using cheaper materials, less skilled labor, or fewer quality control measures.

When is it acceptable to "compromise on quality for" something?

It might be acceptable when the benefits of doing so (e.g., increased accessibility, faster production) outweigh the drawbacks of reduced quality, and when customers are fully informed about the trade-off.