Conversion calculator

Cake Pan Size Converter

A tin holds batter by its area, not its width — so the change is always about twice what the diameter suggests.

Calculator

Measured in

Only needed for a capacity in litres.

Common tins:

9 in round8 in round

0.79× the recipe

That is −21.0% of the batter. Areas: 63.650.3 in² (410324 cm²).

The answer most people get

Scaling by the diameter
−11.1%
Scaling by the area
−21.0%
Out by
1.89×

A tin holds batter by its area, not its width. Area goes as the square of the diameter, so the change is always about twice what the linear figure suggests — and always in the direction of needing a bigger adjustment than you thought.

What that means for the bake

Same batter, depth becomes1.27×as deep
Capacity, recipe tin2.09 L8.8 cups
Capacity, your tin1.65 L7.0 cups

The new tin is smaller. Keeping the same batter makes it deeper, so lower the oven by about 15 °C and expect a longer bake; otherwise scale the recipe down. Depth is what changes the bake, not the capacity: batter that sits deeper takes longer for the middle to set, and a hotter oven will set the outside before it gets there.

Common tins on one scale

Area, and the round tin each is equivalent to
TinArea (in²)Same as a roundvs a 9″ round
6″ round28.36.000.44×
8″ round50.38.000.79×
9″ round63.69.001.00×
10″ round78.510.001.23×
8″ square64.09.031.01×
9″ square81.010.161.27×
9 × 13″ sheet117.012.211.84×
8½ × 4½″ loaf38.36.980.60×
9 × 5″ loaf45.07.570.71×
20 cm round48.77.870.77×
23 cm round64.49.061.01×

Two things worth noticing. An 8″ square is larger than a 9″ round, despite the smaller number — a square is 27.32% larger than a round of the same nominal size, at every size, because the ratio is 4/π exactly. And a 9 × 13 sheet is nearly twice a 9″ round, which is why halving a traybake recipe for a layer tin usually still leaves too much.

What this converter covers

Shows the answer most people get alongside the right one, because the gap between them is the thing worth remembering.

  • Round, square, rectangular and loaf tins, in inches or centimetres
  • How much to scale a recipe, by area rather than diameter
  • What the naive linear answer would have been, and how wrong
  • How the change in depth affects the bake
  • Common tins compared on one scale
Area, not width 4/π for squares Any two tins Inches and cm

Free, no signup — exact by definition, not an estimate.

Updated 7 September 2026

At a glance

Formula shown
Round area = π(d÷2)² · scale = new area ÷ old area · square ÷ round = 4/π at every size
Scenario support
9″ round → 8″ round needs 21% less batter, not 11% · an 8″ square is larger than a 9″ round
Educational estimate
Planning support from the values you enter — not professional advice.

A tin holds batter by area, not width

This is the whole thing, and it catches almost everyone. Swapping a 9-inch round for an 8-inch feels like an eleven percent change, because the diameter dropped by eleven percent. The batter has to drop by twenty-one.

What the diameter suggests against what the area requires
SwapBy diameterBy areaOut by
9″ → 8″−11%−21%1.9×
9″ → 10″+11%+24%2.1×
10″ → 9″−10%−19%1.9×
8″ → 6″−25%−44%1.8×

The error runs about a factor of two every time, and always in the same direction: the real adjustment is bigger than the intuitive one. That is why a cake baked in the wrong tin tends to come out noticeably wrong rather than slightly wrong.

The reason is that area goes as the square of the diameter. Halve the width and you quarter the area — a 6-inch tin holds less than half what a 9-inch does, which surprises people looking at two tins that seem fairly similar.

The calculator shows both numbers deliberately. Returning only the correct one would answer the question and teach nothing, and this is a mistake worth being cured of once rather than looked up repeatedly.

A square is bigger than a round of the same name

An 8-inch square tin and an 8-inch round tin are not the same size, and the difference is larger than most people would guess.

A square of side n has area n², and a circle of diameter n has area πn²/4. Divide one by the other and the n² cancels: the ratio is 4/π, or 27.32%, and it is the same at every size. A square tin always holds a little over a quarter more.

Common tins ranked by what they actually hold
TinArea (in²)vs a 9″ round
6″ round28.30.44×
8″ round50.30.79×
9″ round63.61.00×
8″ square64.01.01×
10″ round78.51.23×
9″ square81.01.27×
9 × 13″ sheet117.01.84×

Read that ordering carefully. An 8-inch square holds fractionally more than a 9-inch round, despite the smaller number on the label — which makes it the ideal substitute, and one almost nobody reaches for.

The 9 × 13 row is the other useful one. It is nearly twice a 9-inch round, so halving a traybake recipe to fit a layer tin still leaves about eight percent too much. Two 9-inch rounds come to 127 square inches against the sheet’s 117, which is close enough to swap in either direction.

Depth is not capacity

Area tells you how much batter fits. Depth tells you how to bake it, and the two questions get run together.

Put the same batter into a smaller tin and it does not simply overflow — it sits deeper. A 9-inch recipe poured into an 8-inch tin is about 27% deeper, which changes the bake in a specific way: the middle takes longer to reach setting temperature, so at the original oven setting the outside will be done before the centre is.

The usual correction is to drop the oven by around 15 °C and extend the time, so the heat has longer to reach the middle without overcooking the edge. Going the other way — the same batter in a larger tin — the cake is shallower and bakes faster, and the risk is drying it out rather than undercooking it, so start checking well before the stated time.

This is also why capacity in litres is less useful than it looks. Two tins with the same capacity but different depths bake differently, and a recipe developed in a 2-inch tin behaves differently in a 3-inch one even at the same diameter. The calculator asks for depth only when you want a capacity figure, and says so, rather than assuming a standard tin and quietly getting it wrong.

A practical limit worth knowing: most cake batters want a tin filled between half and two thirds. Below that the cake is thin and dries; above it, the batter rises over the rim before the structure sets.

Tins that look alike and are not

Three pairs cause most of the trouble, and in each case the two tins sit next to each other in the shop.

The two loaf tins. An 8½ × 4½ × 2½ inch tin holds 1.57 litres; a 9 × 5 × 3 holds 2.21. That is 41% more from a tin that looks barely different, and it is why the same banana bread recipe overflows one and underfills the other. Loaf recipes are unusually sensitive to this because the batter is deep to begin with.

Inches against centimetres. A 20 cm round is often sold as the European 8-inch, and it is about 3% smaller. A 23 cm round stands in for a 9-inch and is 1.2% larger. Both are close enough to substitute without adjusting anything, which is worth knowing so you can stop worrying about it — but they are not the same tin, and a recipe that specifies one and gets the other is being scaled slightly whether you meant to or not.

Nominal against actual. Tins are measured across the top, inside the rim, and many have sloped sides — so the base is smaller than the nominal size and the true capacity sits below the geometric figure. Makers also differ in whether they measure inside or outside. If a substitution is marginal, measuring the tin you actually have beats trusting the number stamped on it.

Scaling a recipe sensibly

The arithmetic gives you a factor. Applying it takes a little judgement, because not everything in a recipe scales the same way.

  • Scale everything by the same factor first, then look at the result. That is the right starting point and it is right for flour, sugar, fat, eggs and liquid.
  • Round eggs sensibly. Two and a bit eggs is the most common practical problem in scaling. Beat an egg and weigh out the fraction rather than rounding to a whole one — a large egg is about 50 g out of the shell, so 0.4 of one is 20 g, and guessing that is a meaningful error in a small cake.
  • Raising agents scale slightly less than proportionally in large increases. Doubling a recipe and doubling the baking powder often gives a cake that rises fast and collapses; going a little under the scaled figure is the safer error.
  • Do not scale the bake time. Time follows depth, not quantity. A cake with twice the batter in a tin twice the area bakes in approximately the same time; the same batter in a smaller, deeper tin takes considerably longer.
  • Salt and strong flavourings scale by taste. A tripled recipe with tripled spice is usually too much, because perception of concentration is not linear.

Where the factor comes out close to one — within about five percent — the honest answer is to change nothing. That is inside the variation between two tins of the same nominal size, and adjusting for it is false precision.

Related calculators

Other kitchen conversions where the obvious answer is wrong:

CookingCups, spoons and sticks to grams for 16 ingredients — with all five cups, the 20 mL Australian tablespoon, and flour as a range.
Oven TemperatureGas marks, °C, °F and fan settings — asking which oven the recipe meant, since the 20 °C offset goes both ways.
VolumeLitres, gallons, pints and cubic units — with US and imperial named apart, because a UK gallon is 20% larger than a US one.
AreaSquare feet, square metres, acres and hectares, with the factors squared for you — a square metre is 10.76 sq ft, not 3.28.
Volume to WeightGallons to pounds, cubic yards to tons, litres to kilograms — by substance, with an honest range rather than one invented number.
LengthMillimetres to miles on the exact 1959 factors, with the mil kept clearly apart from the millimetre — they differ 25-fold.

More in Conversion, or browse all calculators.

Sources and methodology

There is nothing to cite for most of this page, because it is geometry — the area of a circle has not changed and needs no authority. The references cover the unit definitions that make the imperial and metric comparisons exact rather than approximate, which is the only place a standard enters at all.

Conversion note

Scaling by area gets the quantity of batter right and says nothing about whether the recipe will work. Chemical leavening, gluten development, creaming and emulsification do not all scale linearly, so a recipe multiplied by three is not simply three times a recipe — large batches often need less raising agent proportionally, and very small ones can be difficult to mix properly at all. Bake times scale with depth rather than with volume and cannot be calculated reliably from either; the advice here about lowering the oven for a deeper cake is a starting point, and a skewer is the authority. Tins also vary: nominal sizes are measured differently by different makers, sloped sides mean the top and bottom areas differ, and a dark or non-stick tin bakes faster than a light one at the same setting. Treat the arithmetic as the reliable part and the baking as the part that still needs judgement.

How we calculate · Found an error? email us

Authorship & verification

Written and maintained by , a business operator who builds spreadsheet-based calculators.

What's changed (10 updates)

Published 7 September 2026

  1. Published the Cake Pan Size Converter: round, square, rectangular and loaf tins in inches or centimetres, scaling a recipe by area.
  2. Shows the answer most people get beside the correct one, because a tin holds batter by its area rather than its width. A 9 inch round to an 8 inch is 11 percent by diameter and 21 percent by area.
  3. Notes that the error runs about a factor of two across every common substitution, and always in the direction of needing a bigger adjustment than expected -- which is why a cake baked in the wrong tin comes out noticeably wrong rather than slightly wrong.
  4. Establishes that a square tin is exactly 27.32 percent larger than a round of the same nominal size at every size, because the ratio is 4 over pi and the size term cancels.
  5. Surfaces the consequence: an 8 inch square holds fractionally more than a 9 inch round despite the smaller number, making it the best substitute and one almost nobody reaches for.
  6. Separates depth from capacity. The same batter in a smaller tin sits deeper rather than overflowing, so the correction is to lower the oven by about 15 C and extend the time -- and going the other way risks drying the cake rather than undercooking it.
  7. Asks for depth only when a capacity in litres is wanted, rather than assuming a standard tin depth.
  8. Compares the tins that look alike and are not: a 9x5x3 loaf holds 41 percent more than an 8.5x4.5x2.5, and the metric stand-ins are 3 percent under and 1.2 percent over their imperial namesakes.
  9. Notes where scaling advice stops being arithmetic -- raising agents scale slightly less than proportionally, eggs should be weighed rather than rounded, and bake time follows depth rather than quantity.
  10. Verified by 60 automated cases, including that the square-to-round ratio is size-independent across a seven-size sweep, that no linear comparison is offered between different shapes, and that every substitution is reciprocal.

Add this calculator to your site

Responsive embed — and private: nothing your visitors type leaves their browser.