<jats:p>The purpose of this work was to evaluate differences in dose resulting from the use of copper aperture inserts compared to lead‐alloy (Cerrobend) aperture inserts for electron beam therapy. Specifically, this study examines if copper aperture inserts can be used clinically with the same commissioning data measured using lead‐alloy aperture inserts. The copper inserts were acquired from .decimal, LLC and matching lead‐alloy, Cerrobend inserts were constructed in‐house for 32 combinations of nine square insert field sizes (<jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0001.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0001" /> to <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0002.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0002" />) and five applicator sizes (<jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0003.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0003" /> to <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0004.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0004" />). Percent depth‐dose and off‐axis relative dose profiles were measured using an electron diode in water for select copper and Cerrobend inserts for a subset of applicators (<jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0005.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0005" />) and energies (6, 12, 20 MeV) at 100 and 110 cm source‐to‐surface distances (SSD) on a Varian Clinac 21EX accelerator. Dose outputs were measured for all field size‐insert combinations and five available energies (<jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0006.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0006" />) at 100 cm SSD and for a smaller subset at 110 cm SSD. Using these data, 2D planar absolute dose distributions were generated and compared. Criteria for agreement were <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0007.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0007" /> of maximum dose or 1 mm distance‐to‐agreement for 99% of points. A gamma analysis of the beam dosimetry showed 94 of 96 combinations of insert size, applicator, energy, and SSD were within the <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0008.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0008" /> criteria for <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0009.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0009" /> of points. Outside the field, copper inserts showed less bremsstrahlung dose under the insert compared to Cerrobend (greatest difference was 2.5% at 20 MeV and 100 cm SSD). This effect was most prominent at the highest energies for combinations of large applicators with small field sizes, causing some gamma analysis failures. Inside the field, more electrons scattered from the collimator edge of copper compared to Cerrobend, resulting in an increased dose at the field edge for copper at shallow depths (greatest increase was 1% at 20 MeV and 100 cm SSD). Dose differences decreased as the SSD increased, with no gamma failures at 110 cm SSD. Inserts for field sizes <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0010.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0010" /> at any energy, or for small fields (<jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0011.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0011" />) at energies <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0012.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0012" />, showed dosimetric differences less than <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0013.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0013" /> for more than 99% of points. All areas of comparison criteria failures were from lower out‐of‐field dose under copper inserts due to a reduction in bremsstrahlung production, which is clinically beneficial in reducing dose to healthy tissue outside of the planned treatment volume. All field size‐applicator size‐energy combinations passed <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="graphic/acm20001y-math-0014.png" xlink:title="urn:x-wiley:15269914:media:acm20001y:acm20001y-math-0014" /> criteria for 100% of points. Therefore, it should be clinically acceptable to utilize copper insets with dose distributions measured with Cerrobend inserts for treatment planning dose calculations and monitor unit calculations.</jats:p><jats:p>PACS number(s): 87.56.jk</jats:p>