Link to our research disclaimer.

We believe one of the most disruptive industrial technologies of the past two decades has been 3D printing, commonly known as additive manufacturing. While the industry has experienced multiple boom-bust cycles, with investor sentiment and valuations currently at all-time lows, we see this as an attractive opportunity for long-term investors to take another look at the sector. Additive manufacturing is continuing to transform industries, from aerospace and healthcare to automotive and industrial production. Having covered this space extensively as a sell-side analyst, venture investor, and Head of Investor Relations for a public additive manufacturing company, we have a deep understanding of both the challenges and opportunities in this market. In this deep dive, we’ll break down why we believe this sector remains compelling, provide a key technology breakdown, analyze the trends shaping the industry, explore the most critical end markets and highlight investable opportunities.

Investment Thesis

Our long term bullish investment thesis for additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) is built on three key factors. First, after two years of a manufacturing recession in the U.S., which significantly slowed demand for 3D printers, we believe an improving industrial environment will unlock years of pent-up demand. Companies that previously delayed capital expenditures are now in a position to reinvest in advanced manufacturing technologies, with 3D printing poised to be a beneficiary. While elevated interest rates have also impacted demand, we believe improving financial conditions will further support a better demand environment. Second, rising geopolitical tensions and global supply chain disruptions are accelerating the shift toward nearshoring and more flexible, localized manufacturing, which is exactly where additive manufacturing excels. The ability to produce complex parts on demand, with minimal lead times and supply chain dependencies, makes additive manufacturing an ideal solution for companies looking to de-risk their production strategies. Third, investor sentiment toward the industry is at historical lows, with valuations reflecting extreme pessimism. After years of overpromising and underdelivering, many investors have given up on the sector. However, we see this as an opportunity for long-term focused investors. While short-term sentiment remains negative, the long-term fundamentals of additive manufacturing continue to improve, creating a favorable risk-reward setup for patient investors.

Investors looking to gain exposure to this industry have multiple opportunities, as additive manufacturing spans across several key segments of the broader manufacturing ecosystem. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) design and sell industrial 3D printers, ranging from polymer-based systems to high-end metal printers. Public players here include Stratasys SSYS 0.00%↑, 3D Systems DDD 0.00%↑, Desktop Metal DM 0.00%↑, Nano Dimension NNDM 0.00%↑, Prodways $PWG, HP HPQ 0.00%↑ and Velo3D $VLDX. Software developers create platforms that convert CAD designs into printable files, enabling precise control over the manufacturing process; examples include Materialise MTLS 0.00%↑. Service providers, commonly known as digital manufacturers, offer outsourced 3D printing capabilities for companies that prefer not to invest in their own equipment, such as Proto Labs PRLB 0.00%↑ and Xometry XMTR 0.00%↑. Material providers supply the essential raw materials, such as metal powders and high-performance polymers, that fuel the additive manufacturing ecosystem. While many OEMs sell proprietary materials, there are a few pure play material providers such as Tekna $TEKNA.

As we show below in a 5 year stock performance chart, most of these stocks have been on consistent decline since the last boom cycle ended in 2021. While near term sentiment might be uncertain, we believe the current valuation disconnect across the industry creates an attractive entry point for some of these names.

We the last section of our deep dive we highlight the better pure-play investment opportunities across the additive manufacturing ecosystem.

Best Investment Ideas

Key Risks: High Competition, Poor Visibility and Lack of Profitability

While we see compelling long-term opportunities in additive manufacturing, investors should also be aware of the risks associated with this industry. One of the biggest challenges is the intensely competitive landscape, with hundreds of suppliers offering 3D printing systems across various materials and technologies. This high level of competition has historically put pressure on average selling prices (ASPs) for both printers and consumables, which can limit profitability for OEMs. Additionally, while the technology continues to advance, 3D printing is still considered a “nice-to-have” rather than a “must-have” in many industries, making it highly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions. During periods of economic downturn or rising interest rates, companies often prioritize core capital expenditures over additive manufacturing investments, leading to sharp demand fluctuations.

Another significant risk is the historical tendency of additive manufacturing companies, particularly the OEMs, to overpromise and underdeliver. Many 3D printing companies have struggled with execution, leading to frequent earnings misses and downward revisions. Compounding this challenge is the low visibility into future demand, as OEMs typically lack strong backlog visibility beyond a single quarter. In fact, most printer sales tend to be heavily backloaded, with a large percentage of revenue coming in the last three weeks of the quarter, making forecasting highly unpredictable. Q4 has historically been the strongest quarter for printer sales, adding to the lumpiness in revenue recognition. This lack of visibility has led to frequent earnings disappointments, particularly for hardware-focused companies. In contrast, software providers and on-demand manufacturers tend to have more stable revenue streams and better forecasting accuracy, making them relatively lower-risk plays within the additive ecosystem.

A final risk factor is that profitability remains elusive for much of the industry. Despite the hype around additive manufacturing, many companies have struggled to generate consistent profits. Legacy players such as 3D Systems (DDD) and Stratasys (SSYS) have been around for over 30 years but only Stratasys has recently begun to achieve sustainable profitability. Over the past year, the industry has seen multiple bankruptcies and shutdowns as unprofitable companies ran out of cash. However, certain segments have demonstrated stronger financial performance, with profitable companies emerging in areas like software, materials, and digital manufacturing services.

Where Investor Should Focus…High-Value End Use Applications

Historically, the additive manufacturing industry has been primarily focused on prototyping applications, with the vast majority of revenues derived from this segment. While prototyping has been a foundational use case for 3D printing due to its ability to quickly iterate designs without expensive tooling, we see this market as a race to the bottom for system prices. End-users in prototyping applications typically do not require high-end systems, leading to increasing price pressure on OEMs. Furthermore, low-cost desktop printers from companies like Bambu Labs (private), which sell for under $5,000, have taken over much of this market, making it difficult for industrial OEMs to compete, especially when systems from companies like Stratasys (SSYS) start at $70,000 or more. Because of this dynamic, we believe focusing on prototyping limits long-term growth potential and that the real opportunity lies in additive manufacturing’s expansion into end-use production. In turn, we believe OEMs that offer solutions that target these high value end-markets are in much stronger position.

As system throughput speeds have improved and material properties have advanced, the adoption of additive manufacturing for end-use parts has grown significantly. This includes printed components used directly in manufacturing lines, as well as final-use parts in automotive, aerospace, and healthcare applications, such as aircraft components, automotive parts, and orthopedic implants. A key advantage for OEMs operating in this space is that companies using additive manufacturing for end-use production typically go through a qualification process, which ensures parts meet strict performance and regulatory standards. Once an OEM’s system is qualified for a specific application, customers are less likely to switch vendors, creating long-term stickiness and a competitive moat. We believe it is critical that the leading players in this industry emphasize their strategy around these end-use applications rather than solely relying on prototyping. Companies focused on dental, healthcare, industrial manufacturing, aerospace, and automotive applications are best positioned for long-term success.

Additionally, a common mistake investors make is assuming all 3D printing technologies are the same. As we highlight in the technology overview section, there are 9 core additive manufacturing technologies, each with distinct strengths and weaknesses. While these technologies can print both polymers and metals, we believe the most attractive opportunities lie in metal OEMs and advanced polymer players that specialize in high-strength composite materials. However, investors should be aware that the number of public OEMs that fit this profile is limited.

As such, while we believe some OEMs are well-positioned to benefit from industry growth, we have typically viewed software providers and on-demand part manufacturers with high exposure to end-use applications as the most attractive investment opportunities. These companies offer more predictable revenue streams and stronger financial performance compared to hardware-focused OEMs, which face higher capital intensity and greater volatility. Materialise (MTLS), a leader in medical applications, exemplifies this model through its specialized 3D printing software and patient-specific surgical solutions, while Proto Labs (PRLB) has built a strong digital manufacturing platform that provides on-demand production of custom parts. Both companies benefit from the broader growth of the additive manufacturing ecosystem without being as directly impacted by cyclical capital spending on new printing systems.

Competitive Landscape

The additive manufacturing industry is highly fragmented, with intense competition across key segments, including OEMs, digital manufacturers, software providers, and material suppliers. In the following sections, we’ll break down the key players in each category and analyze the factors that differentiate winners from the rest of the industry.

OEMS

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are the backbone of the additive manufacturing industry, designing and selling the 3D printing systems that enable companies to produce parts. These companies generate revenue primarily through hardware sales, but a significant portion of their business comes from recurring revenue streams, including consumables (materials), software, and maintenance services. The OEM business model is heavily dependent on gross margin mix, with system sales typically carrying gross margins in the mid-to-high 40% range, while consumables (materials) generate over 70% gross margins, and software margins exceed 80-90%. This recurring revenue is critical to profitability, as hardware margins are often pressured by competition and pricing fluctuations. The OEM market is highly competitive, with players offering systems that range from low-cost polymer printers to high-end industrial metal printers used in aerospace, automotive, and healthcare applications. In recent years, Chinese-based OEMs such as Bambu Labs (private), Bright Laser Technologies (traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange) and others have increased competitive pressures outside of China by offering lower-cost and better-performing systems. The largest publicly traded OEMs include Stratasys (SSYS), 3D Systems (DDD), Desktop Metal (DM), Nano Dimension (NNDM), Markforged (MKFG), Prodways (PWG), Hewit Packward (HP), Velo3D (VLDX), Colibrium Additive (Owned by GE) and SLM Solutions (owned by Nikon). However, this industry includes hundreds of large private players such as Formlabs, Carbon and Voxeljet. We believe the winners in this space will be those that focus on end-use applications, leveraging technologies that produce high-quality, consistent parts that require certification. Additionally, strong recurring revenue streams from consumables and software will be critical for long-term profitability, as hardware alone remains a challenging business model.

Software

Software plays a critical role in the additive manufacturing ecosystem, with slicing software being a fundamental component that converts CAD files into instructions for 3D printers. While many OEMs have developed their own proprietary slicing software to ensure seamless integration with their hardware, Materialise (MTLS) remains a key independent provider and a leader in this space. Materialise’s software solutions are widely used across industries, offering advanced slicing capabilities, print preparation, and workflow automation that can work across multiple printing platforms. In addition to slicing software, Materialise and other providers have carved out a strong position in the medical space, offering software that translates medical imaging (such as CT scans and MRIs) into 3D printable models used for custom orthopedics, surgical planning tools, and implants. This segment remains a high-value market with strong adoption in hospitals and medical device manufacturing. We believe the ongoing AI revolution will have a massive impact on additive manufacturing software, unlocking new capabilities and streamlining critical pain points in the printing process. AI-powered simulation software is being developed to ensure that printed parts meet stringent end-use specifications, reducing waste and production failures. Live print monitoring is also improving consistency and quality control, addressing one of the biggest historical challenges in 3D printing. However, one of the most significant bottlenecks in additive manufacturing remains the process of designing parts in CAD, which has traditionally required significant expertise and manual effort. AI could be the breakthrough that makes this process more accessible, and companies like Backflip (private) are pioneering AI-driven solutions that convert text and image prompts into 3D-printable models. While this technology is still in its early stages, AI-powered CAD generation represents a potential holy grail for the industry, allowing more users to take advantage of additive manufacturing without deep design expertise.

Material & Component Providers

Materials are a critical component of the additive manufacturing ecosystem, serving as a key recurring revenue stream for OEMs. Historically, most 3D printing companies operated on a closed-system model, where only their proprietary materials could be used with their machines, ensuring high-margin consumable sales. However, over the years, OEMs have gradually loosened restrictions, allowing for more open material ecosystems that enable customers to choose from third-party suppliers. This shift has expanded the market for independent material providers, giving end-users greater flexibility in material selection while still maintaining strong recurring revenue for OEMs. While many OEMs sell their own branded materials, there are pure-play material providers that serve the broader industry. One key player is Tekna (Oslo Exchange: TEKNA), which specializes in metal powders used in aerospace, medical, and consumer electronics applications. Aerospace customers, in particular, often require specialized, high-performance materials that go through rigorous certification processes. Plus once a material is qualified for a specific part, customers are reluctant to switch suppliers, creating long-term stability in this market. This qualification dynamic makes companies like Tekna particularly attractive, as they serve mission-critical applications where consistency and reliability are essential.

Beyond materials, key components within additive manufacturing systems are also part of the supply chain, but the market remains too small for most component suppliers to have a material impact on their financials. However, one notable exception is nLIGHT ($LASR), which provides high-power lasers used in metal and polymer sintering machines, which we view as one of the fastest-growing segments in additive manufacturing. As metal additive manufacturing continues to scale, demand for high-precision lasers is expected to grow, positioning nLIGHT as a key supplier within this ecosystem.

Service Bureaus

The additive manufacturing services market, commonly referred to as service bureaus, has historically been highly fragmented but offers a more resilient business model compared to OEMs. Service bureaus act as outsourced manufacturing partners, allowing companies to order 3D-printed parts on demand without investing in their own equipment. These providers operate fleets of industrial 3D printers across a range of technologies and materials, catering to industries like aerospace, medical, and industrial manufacturing that require custom parts in low-to-mid volumes. Unlike hardware providers, which are subject to the cyclicality of capital expenditures, service bureaus benefit from continued demand for printed parts, particularly when companies delay investments in their own 3D printing equipment. This has made the service segment a more stable and less cyclical part of the additive manufacturing ecosystem. While the prototyping market remains highly fragmented, we believe companies that specialize in certified end-use part production are best positioned for long-term growth. A prime example is Materialise (MTLS), which operates the world's largest 3D printing service bureau and has built a strong position in regulated industries like healthcare, aerospace and automotive. With deep expertise in qualification processes and certified production, Materialise benefits from high customer retention as switching providers for critical applications is both costly and complex. The combination of certification, specialization, and scalability makes Materialise a standout player in the service bureau space. The largest public player in North America has been Protolabs (PRLB), which provides on-demand manufacturing services, including 3D printing, CNC machining, and injection molding. Proto Labs has built a strong reputation for high-quality, rapid-turnaround production, making it a critical partner for companies across industries.

In recent years, digital manufacturing marketplaces have emerged as a major disruptor in this space. Companies like Xometry (XMTR) have developed platforms that connect buyers with a distributed network of manufacturers, offering an asset-light way to scale production capacity. Recognizing this shift, Protolabs has also expanded its capabilities to include a marketplace model alongside its internal manufacturing operations. While we expect marketplace-based services to see significant growth in the coming years, we remain skeptical of the business model’s long-term profitability. Marketplaces like Xometry are excellent tools for sourcing low-volume prototypes, but when customers scale to high production volumes, they often bypass the marketplace and work directly with manufacturers to avoid the platform’s markup (i.e., Xometry’s gross profit). As a result, revenue per customer is often capped, which is critical for marketplace players.This is why we view Protolabs’ hybrid approach, which combines its own internal factory production with a network model, as a more sustainable and scalable solution. By offering both in-house manufacturing and a supplier network, Protolabs is better positioned to capture long-term customer relationships that extend beyond just prototyping and grow revenue per customer.

Consolidation, Bankruptcies and Go-Private Deals…OH MY!

The additive manufacturing industry has seen significant consolidation attempts, both successful and failed, as companies struggle to achieve profitability. In 2023, Mergermania took place as Stratasys (SSYS) was at the center of an aggressive bidding war between 3D Systems (DDD) and Nano Dimension (NNDM), yet after months of negotiations and proxy fights, no deal materialized. More recently, Nano Dimension announced acquisitions of Markforged (MKFG) and Desktop Metal (DM), but these deals have not closed yet. Further fueling M&A speculation, there were reports that Stratasys attempted to acquire HP’s 3D printing division in 2024 but failed to reach an agreement on valuation. We firmly believe that consolidation is necessary for this industry to reach sustainable profitability as there is simply too much duplication in R&D, bloated operating expenses, and a lack of scale efficiencies across the sector. Merging companies would allow for cost reductions and greater focus on high-growth applications. However, as one industry source perfectly put it, ‘when you take one shit company and merge it with another shit company, all you get is a bigger shit company.’ While there are certainly complementary acquisitions and mergers that make sense, the timing and execution remain highly uncertain.

Beyond failed M&A, the past two years of manufacturing recession and weak capital spending have caused major shakeouts in the industry, leading to bankruptcies, forced restructurings, and go-private deals. One of the most notable failures was Nexa3D, a company that once showed promise but ultimately could not survive the downturn. Velo3D (VLDX), another high-profile OEM, was likely weeks away from bankruptcy before securing last-minute financing, largely due to its focus on high-growth areas in metal 3D printing. Others, like Voxeljet (private), realized that the public markets were not the best fit for a 3D printing company and opted to go private. The main takeaway for investors is that this industry has seen multiple merger attempts fail, several companies go bankrupt, and others abandon the public markets altogether. While we still see long-term potential in additive manufacturing, the sector remains highly volatile, and the path to sustainable profitability is anything but certain.

Technology Overview

The 3D printing workflow begins with designing a part in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software, where engineers create a digital model with precise dimensions and specifications. Once the design is finalized, it is exported as a 3D file (typically in STL format) and processed through slicing software, such as Materialise’s Magics or OEM-specific software, which converts the 3D model into a series of printable layers and generates machine instructions. The sliced file is then uploaded to the 3D printer, where the machine follows the toolpath instructions to build the part layer by layer using the chosen additive manufacturing technology. After printing, the part often undergoes post-processing steps dependent on the additive manufacturing technology used such as support removal, curing, sintering, or surface finishing to achieve the final mechanical and aesthetic properties. This multi-step workflow is crucial for investors to understand, as it highlights the importance of both hardware and software in the 3D printing ecosystem.

However, a common mistake investors make is grouping all 3D printing hardware together, when in reality, there are 9 distinct technologies and each process has distinct advantages, limitations, and market opportunities. Understanding these differences is critical, as adoption rates, competitive dynamics, and scalability vary across technologies. While polymers have historically dominated 3D printing, we see the greatest long-term opportunity in advanced composites and metal additive manufacturing as 3D printing shifts from prototyping to production.

In the following sections, we break down the core technologies, their strengths and weaknesses, and the key players shaping this dynamic market.

Fused Deposition Modeling

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), also known as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), is one of first and most widely used additive manufacturing technologies due to its affordability and scalability. The process involves extruding thermoplastic filament through a heated nozzle, which deposits material layer by layer to build a final part. FDM is ideal for prototyping and functional part production. It supports a wide range of materials, from standard thermoplastics like ABS and PLA to high-performance polymers and composites, offering flexibility across industries such as aerospace, automotive, healthcare and manufacturing. Based on FDM, companies have brought new solutions to market that allow for continuous carbon fiber printing, which significantly increases strength properties but keeping weight characteristics mostly unchanged. Additionally, FDM systems support large build volumes, and have lower operational costs compared to other additive manufacturing methods, making them an attractive choice for many applications. However, FDM has limitations, particularly in resolution and surface finish, which are inferior to resin-based and metal printing technologies. The market is also highly competitive and increasingly commoditized, leading to pricing pressure on OEMs as lower-cost alternatives continue to emerge, particularly from Chinese manufacturers like Bambu Labs (private).

Historically, Stratasys (SSYS) has been the leading provider of FDM 3D printers, particularly in industrial applications. However, Chinese manufacturer Bambu Lab has significantly disrupted the FDM market. While legacy OEMs have traditionally sold systems priced between $70K - $500K, Bambu Lab has introduced sub-$5K machines that rival industrial-quality prints. This pricing advantage puts pressure on high-end providers and signals a potential shift in market dynamics. Furthermore, it is only a matter of time before companies like Bambu Labs (private) go upstream, and begin introducing lower-cost true industrial printers.

See video overview of the FDM process.

Stereolithography

Stereolithography is one of the oldest and most widely used resin-based 3D printing technologies, known for its high-resolution prints and smooth surface finishes. SLA works by using a UV laser to selectively cure liquid photopolymer resin layer by layer, solidifying the material into a final part. This process allows for incredible detail and precision, making SLA a popular choice for industries like dental, medical, jewelry, and prototyping. SLA excels in producing highly detailed, smooth, and accurate parts, making it superior to FDM in terms of resolution. The wide variety of resin formulations allows for applications requiring flexibility, toughness, or high-temperature resistance, and the technology is well-suited for functional prototypes and end-use parts in specialized industries. However, SLA has notable drawbacks. The photopolymer resins are more expensive than FDM filaments and can be brittle, limiting mechanical strength in some applications. Post-processing is also more intensive, requiring washing and UV curing to finalize the print. Additionally, resin handling can be messy and requires proper safety precautions.

Historically, 3D Systems (DDD) pioneered SLA technology and remains a leader in industrial resin printing, offering high-end machines for dental, medical, and engineering applications. However, Formlabs has disrupted the market by providing affordable, low-priced professional-grade SLA printers, significantly expanding the adoption of resin-based 3D printing. Chinese manufacturers have also driven price competition in the consumer and prosumer segments, making high-quality SLA printing more accessible than ever. While industrial SLA printers from 3D Systems (DDD) remain best-in-class for large-scale production, the market is becoming increasingly crowded and price-sensitive as we view privately held Formlabs as best positioned in this space.

See video overview of the SLA process.

Digital Light Processing

Digital Light Processing (DLP) is another resin-based 3D printing technology similar to Stereolithography (SLA), but instead of using a single-point UV laser to cure resin layer by layer, DLP uses a digital light projector to cure entire layers simultaneously. This key difference allows DLP to print faster than SLA while still achieving high-resolution and smooth surface finishes. Both DLP and SLA produce highly detailed parts with smooth surface finishes, making them ideal for applications in dental, medical, jewelry, and high-precision prototyping. However, DLP’s ability to cure entire layers at once makes it significantly faster than SLA, particularly for batch production. On the other hand, SLA printers typically offer slightly higher resolution because the laser can achieve finer detail than the pixelated projection used in DLP. Additionally, DLP’s build area is limited by the resolution of the projector. As the print area increases, resolution decreases, whereas SLA maintains consistent resolution regardless of build size.

3D Systems (DDD) and EnvisionTEC (acquired by Desktop Metal, (DM)) and Stratasys (SSYS) have been the larger DLP players, particularly in dental and jewelry applications. However, industry sources suggest that Desktop Metal is actively looking to offload EnvisionTEC’s technology, as it struggles to integrate the business within its broader portfolio. Companies like Carbon (private) have also innovated in this space, offering proprietary DLP-based solutions with high-speed printing and engineered resins for end-use parts. In addition, Chinese manufacturers have driven down costs in the prosumer DLP market, making high-quality resin printing more accessible. Compared to SLA, DLP is generally more attractive for high-speed production environments, but both technologies remain highly competitive in the resin 3D printing space.

See video overview of the DLP process.

Selective Laser Sintering

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is a powder-based additive manufacturing technology that uses a high-powered laser to fuse polymer powder particles together layer by layer. Unlike SLA and DLP, which use liquid resin, SLS does not require support structures because the surrounding unsintered powder naturally supports the part as it prints. This makes SLS ideal for complex geometries and functional parts. SLS primarily uses thermoplastic powders, with nylon-based polymers being the most common due to their strength, flexibility, and chemical resistance, making them ideal for functional prototypes and industrial applications. Other materials include polypropylene (PP), TPU for flexible components, and high-performance polymers like PEEK and PEKK, which offer exceptional heat and chemical resistance for aerospace and medical applications. SLS is highly scalable for batch production, making it a preferred choice for manufacturers looking to produce low-to-mid-volume plastic parts without the need for injection molding. However, SLS has some key drawbacks. Historically, the initial system costs are significantly higher than FDM and SLA, making it less accessible for smaller manufacturers. However, more affordable systems are starting to enter the market. Additionally, powder handling requires strict safety protocols, as the fine particles can be hazardous if not properly contained. Material options are also somewhat limited, restricting applications that require a broader range of properties. Lastly, SLS parts often have a rougher surface finish compared to SLA or DLP prints, requiring additional post-processing steps to achieve a smooth appearance.

Historically, 3D Systems (DDD) and EOS (private) have been the dominant players in the SLS market, with EOS being widely regarded as the gold standard for industrial SLS printing. However, companies like Formlabs (private) have entered the market with more affordable, compact SLS systems, increasing accessibility for small and mid-sized manufacturers. We believe the low-end SLS market presents a significant opportunity, as SLS is one of the best additive manufacturing solutions for low-to-mid-volume end-use applications. Unlike FDM, which lacks the scalability, or SLA/DLP, which is limited by brittle resins, SLS produces strong, functional thermoplastic parts without the need for support structures, making it ideal for scalable production. As the demand for cost-effective, short-run production increases across industries like automotive, medical, and industrial manufacturing, we see low-end SLS as a key growth area within additive manufacturing.

See video overview of the SLS process.

Material Jetting

Material Jetting (MJ) is a high-precision additive manufacturing technology that works similarly to inkjet printing, where tiny droplets of photopolymer or wax-like material are deposited layer by layer and cured with UV light. This process enables exceptional resolution, smooth surface finishes, and multi-material printing capabilities, making it ideal for dental, medical, jewelry, and high-detail prototyping applications. Material Jetting excels in producing highly detailed, smooth, and multi-material parts, giving it an advantage over SLA and DLP when intricate color, texture, and transparency are required. It is particularly valuable in applications that demand high aesthetic and dimensional accuracy, such as medical models, dental restorations, and advanced prototyping. Additionally, MJ allows for the use of multiple materials within a single print, enabling complex assemblies with varying properties. However, Material Jetting has some key limitations. The resin-like materials used in MJ tend to be brittle, making them unsuitable for high-strength functional applications. Additionally, material costs are high, and post-processing is required to remove support structures and cure the printed parts. The process is also slower than some other additive manufacturing methods, limiting its scalability for high-volume production.

Stratasys (SSYS) has been the dominant player in the Material Jetting market through its PolyJet technology, with 3D Systems (DDD) a close second. While Material Jetting remains a niche technology, its ability to produce highly detailed, multi-material parts makes it an essential tool in medical and prototyping applications. However, due to its high material costs and limited mechanical strength, we see greater investment potential in more scalable additive technologies like SLS, Binder Jetting and metal 3D printing.

See video overview of the Material Jetting process.

Binder Jetting

Binder Jetting (BJ) is an additive manufacturing technology that selectively deposits a liquid binding agent onto a powdered material bed, bonding the particles layer by layer. This process allows for high-speed printing of metals, ceramics, and polymers, making it one of the most versatile 3D printing technologies available. Unlike SLS or DMLS, which use lasers to fuse powder, Binder Jetting does not require high heat during printing, resulting in faster print speeds and lower energy consumption. However, Binder Jetting does require a secondary sintering process to fully densify metal and ceramic parts, adding an additional step before they reach their final mechanical properties. Binder Jetting’s biggest advantage is its high production speed, which can rival traditional mid-volume (under 100K units) injection molding runs, making it one of the most disruptive additive technologies for traditional manufacturing. Because Binder Jetting does not require high-powered lasers or expensive support structures, it offers lower material costs and higher throughput than many other metal and ceramic 3D printing methods. However, Binder Jetting has some limitations. Parts often require secondary processing, such as sintering or infiltration, to achieve full mechanical properties, which can add cost and complexity. Additionally, while Binder Jetting produces highly scalable parts, surface finish and density can vary, requiring additional post-processing to match the quality of traditional manufacturing. Furthermore, these industrial machines typically cost between $250k up to a $1M+, which makes the price point expensive for early adopters.

Desktop Metal (DM) via their acquisition of ExOne has been one of the biggest proponents of Binder Jetting for metal and ceramic applications. 3D Systems, Voxeljet (private) Markforged (MKFG), HP (HPQ) and Colibrium Additive (owned by GE) have also entered the Binder Jetting space offering a mix of polymer, ceramic and metal solutions. We believe Binder Jetting has the greatest potential to disrupt traditional manufacturing, particularly in mid-volume production. Its speed and cost advantages could make it a viable alternative to injection molding for runs under 100K units, opening up new opportunities across automotive, aerospace, medical, and industrial applications.

See video overview of the Binder Jetting process.

High-Speed Sintering

High-Speed Sintering (HSS), also known as Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) when referring to HP’s proprietary technology, is a relatively new additive manufacturing process that combines key benefits of Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Binder Jetting. Like SLS, HSS/MJF uses a powder bed of thermoplastic material, but instead of a laser to fuse particles, it applies a binding agent similar to Binder Jetting and then uses infrared heat to selectively sinter the material. This enables faster print speeds, more precise thermal control, and better mechanical properties compared to traditional SLS. HSS offers several advantages over other powder-based 3D printing technologies. It is significantly faster than SLS, as it does not rely on a single laser to trace each layer, making it more scalable for production environments. The process also allows for greater consistency in mechanical properties, reducing thermal warping and improving part strength. Additionally, MJF can achieve finer detail resolution than SLS, making it attractive for functional parts in industrial and consumer applications. However, HSS/MJF has some drawbacks. While faster and more precise, it is still a relatively new technology, and material options are more limited than in SLS. Additionally, post-processing steps such as depowdering and finishing are still required, and initial machine costs remain high, limiting adoption among smaller manufacturers.

The leading player in HSS/MJF technology is HP, which pioneered Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) as a scalable alternative to SLS. HP’s MJF systems have gained traction in automotive, medical, and industrial applications, particularly for low-to-mid-volume production of functional plastic parts. More recently, Stratasys (SSYS) has entered the market with its Selective Absorption Fusion (SAF) technology, which functions similarly to HSS/MJF but offers greater material compatibility and industrial scalability. Additionally, Voxeljet ($VJET) has developed High-Speed Sintering systems, targeting large-format production applications. We see HSS/MJF as a promising emerging additive manufacturing technologies, particularly for production-scale polymer applications. By combining the speed of Binder Jetting with the material properties of SLS, HSS/MJF and SAF have the potential to further disrupt traditional injection molding for mid-volume production runs. As material availability expands and machine costs come down, this technology could play a key role in the next wave of industrial 3D printing adoption.

See video overview of the High Speed Sintering process.

Direct Metal Laser Sintering

Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) is the leading additive manufacturing technologies for metal 3D printing, enabling the production of high-performance, end-use parts for industries such as aerospace, automotive, medical, and industrial manufacturing. DMLS (also known as Selective Laser Melting, or SLM) uses a high-powered lasers to selectively fuse metal powders layer by layer to create fully dense metal components. A similar form of DMLS, is called Electron Beam Melting (EBM), which uses an electron beam in a vacuum environment, offering higher energy input, reduced residual stress, and better suitability for reactive metals like titanium and nickel alloys. Both DMLS and EBM have gained strong adoption in highly regulated industries, where lightweight, high-strength, and complex metal parts are critical. Applications range from turbine blades and fuel nozzles in aerospace, to orthopedic implants in medical, and performance parts in automotive and industrial manufacturing.

While SLM Solutions (now owned by Nikon) has historically been the leader in DMLS/SLM technology, competition has significantly increased in recent years. EOS (private), 3D Systems (DDD), Collubrim Additive (owned by GE), Velo3D (VLDX), and several Chinese OEMs such as BLT, Farsoon, and Eplus3D have aggressively expanded their presence in the metal 3D printing market.That said, We believe the metal additive manufacturing market is the best positioned for long-term growth, as the focus on end-use production in mission-critical industries provides a sustainable demand base. Unlike polymer-based additive manufacturing, which has been more focused on prototyping, DMLS and EBM are directly replacing traditional manufacturing processes, such as casting and CNC machining, in applications where part complexity and weight reduction are essential. With aerospace, medical, and high-performance automotive sectors driving demand, we see metal additive manufacturing as one of the most promising areas of the 3D printing industry.

See video overview of the DMLS process.

Directed Energy Deposition

Directed Energy Deposition (DED) is an additive manufacturing process that builds metal parts by depositing material layer by layer using a focused energy source, such as a laser or an electron beam, to melt wire or powdered feedstock. Unlike powder bed fusion (DMLS/EBM), which prints within a confined build chamber, DED can be used for large-scale manufacturing, part repair, and hybrid manufacturing applications. This makes DED one of the most versatile metal 3D printing technologies, capable of repairing worn-out components, adding material to existing parts, and printing large structures that would be difficult to manufacture using traditional methods. However, DED has some limitations. While it is faster than powder bed fusion methods like DMLS or EBM, it sacrifices resolution and surface finish, often requiring extensive post-processing to achieve tight tolerances. DED parts also exhibit higher porosity and lower mechanical properties than DMLS, making them less suitable for applications requiring fine detail and high structural integrity. Additionally, DED systems require complex motion control systems, adding to operational complexity and cost.

The DED market has been gaining traction as industries seek efficient ways to manufacture and repair high-value metal components. Norsk Titanium (NORSF), Optomec (private) and Sciaky (private) specialize in industrial DED systems for aerospace, defense, and energy applications. Meltio has focused on wire-fed DED solutions, making the technology more accessible. Traditional machine tool companies like Trumpf (private) and DMG Mori (private) have also integrated DED into hybrid manufacturing systems, combining additive and subtractive capabilities. We believe DED has a strong long-term outlook, particularly in sectors where part repair, maintenance, and large-scale metal printing are critical. Industries such as aerospace, energy, and defense stand to benefit significantly from DED’s ability to extend the lifespan of expensive components and reduce material waste. However, DED faces competition from powder bed fusion technologies like DMLS/EBM, which offer superior mechanical properties and finer detail resolution.

See video overview of the DED process.

Challenges to 3D Printing Adoption

Despite significant advancements in 3D printing technology, material breakthroughs, and automation, there are still several key hurdles that must be overcome before widespread adoption in large-scale production applications. Below are the main challenges limiting broader integration of additive manufacturing:

• Customer Education & Expertise: Many companies lack the in-house knowledge to effectively use 3D printers, and designing printable parts in CAD remains a major bottleneck. Traditional CAD workflows often do not leverage the full potential of additive manufacturing, requiring specialized training or AI-driven design automation.

• High Costs: Industrial-grade 3D printing systems, materials, and post-processing equipment require significant capital investment, making it difficult for many companies to transition from traditional manufacturing.

• Production Speed & Scalability: While 3D printing excels in low-to-mid-volume production, many processes are still slower and less scalable than traditional manufacturing methods like injection molding and CNC machining.

• Material Limitations: A broader range of certified, high-performance materials is needed to meet the strict regulatory and mechanical requirements of industries such as aerospace, medical, and automotive.

• Regulatory & Qualification Barriers: While 3D printing has proven capable of meeting regulatory and qualification standards, the certification process is time-consuming and costly, slowing down adoption. Industries like aerospace, medical, and defense require extensive testing and validation before 3D-printed parts can be used in production, which delays widespread implementation despite the technology’s capabilities.

While adoption continues to grow, these challenges must be addressed for 3D printing to fully disrupt traditional manufacturing on a large scale.

Key Verticals Driving 3D Printing Adoption

3D printing adoption is rapidly growing across aerospace, automotive, medical, dentistry, and industrial manufacturing, driven by advancements in materials, speed, and scalability. Each of these industries is leveraging additive manufacturing for real-world applications beyond prototyping, from lightweight aerospace components to custom medical implants and high-precision dental products. In the sections below, we break down how each vertical is integrating 3D printing into production workflows and the key opportunities for long-term growth.

Aerospace

Aerospace has been one of the earliest and most significant adopters of 3D printing, using additive manufacturing to produce lightweight, high-performance components that reduce fuel consumption and manufacturing costs. However, not all aerospace parts are created equal. There is a critical distinction between flight-critical and non-flight-critical components. Flight-critical parts are mission-essential components that, if they fail, could compromise aircraft safety. These include engine components, structural airframe parts, and turbine blades, which must undergo rigorous testing, qualification, and certification before being approved for flight. This qualification process is highly complex, expensive, and time-consuming, creating high barriers to entry but also offering a long-term competitive advantage to companies that achieve certification. On the other hand, non-flight-critical parts, such as brackets, air ducts, cabin interior components, and structural supports for seats or tables, do not require the same level of testing and certification. These parts are often ideal for 3D printing because they can be produced faster, lighter, and with more design flexibility than traditional methods.

GE Aviation has been a pioneer in using Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) to manufacture fuel nozzles for its LEAP jet engines (see left picture below), consolidating multiple parts into a single, more efficient design that is 25% lighter and 5x more durable than conventionally manufactured nozzles. Meanwhile, Relativity Space, a disruptor in space exploration, has taken additive manufacturing even further by leveraging Directed Energy Deposition (DED) to 3D print nearly the entire structure of its rockets, drastically reducing part count and enabling faster iteration cycles (see right picture below). As the industry continues to push for lighter, more fuel-efficient, and complex geometries, additive manufacturing is expected to play an even larger role in aerospace production.

Source: Fuel Nozzle (left) VoxelMatters, Relativity Space Rocket (right) CNN

Automotive

Automakers are increasingly integrating 3D printing into production workflows, not just for prototyping and tooling but also for end-use parts and manufacturing innovation. One of the most notable advancements comes from Tesla, which is using binder jetting to create sand molds for die-casting large vehicle underbody components. By leveraging 3D-printed sand molds, Tesla can rapidly iterate designs and produce complex, large-scale parts more efficiently, consolidating multiple components into a single, high-performance structure. This approach reduces production costs, streamlines manufacturing, and enables more flexible design changes, which is particularly valuable in the rapidly evolving EV space. General Motors (GM) has also taken additive manufacturing to new heights with the Cadillac Celestiq, its ultra-luxury EV, which features over 100 3D-printed metal and polymer components. GM has incorporated additive manufacturing into safety critical structural elements, interior features, and production tooling, showcasing the versatility of 3D printing in both functional and aesthetic vehicle components. For example, below we highlight the metal seat belt D-ring on the Cadillac CELESTIQ, which is GM’s first safety-related 3D printed part

Beyond these advancements, other automakers are using 3D printing to optimize performance and reduce weight. We believe as the EV market continues to grow, 3D printing is playing a critical role in reducing vehicle weight, improving aerodynamics, and optimizing battery cooling systems. With automakers prioritizing efficiency, range, and performance, additive manufacturing is expected to become an even more integral part of next-generation vehicle production.

Source: Cadillac

Manufacturing

Manufacturers are increasingly leveraging 3D printing to enhance production efficiency, reduce costs, and streamline supply chains. One of the most common applications is custom tooling, jigs, and fixtures, which allow companies to create specialized production aids faster and cheaper than traditional machining. We believe a major growth opportunity for additive manufacturing lies in the rise of robotics on manufacturing lines. As automation continues to expand, 3D printing is playing a critical role in creating customized end-of-arm tooling, such as robotic grippers, which we highlight below, that can be tailored to specific tasks, materials, and product geometries. These lightweight, durable, and application-specific components help improve efficiency, reduce robotic wear, and enable more flexible manufacturing operations. As more companies seek to optimize lean manufacturing, improve supply chain resilience, and implement just-in-time production, additive manufacturing is expected to play an increasingly important role in the future of industrial production.

Source: AMFG

Healthcare

Healthcare is one of the industries we are most bullish on for 3D printing adoption, as the technology is already enabling highly customized, patient-specific solutions that improve surgical outcomes and medical device manufacturing. One of the most impactful applications is custom implants, where companies like Zimmer Biomet and Stryker use metal additive manufacturing to produce patient-specific orthopedic implants, ensuring better fit and faster recovery. Below highlights a cranio-maxillofacial implant on the left, and custom hip implant on the right. Additionally, 3D-printed surgical guides are transforming preoperative planning, allowing surgeons to customize procedures based on a patient’s anatomy. Companies like Materialise (MTLS) specialize in creating highly accurate, patient-specific implants, guides and anatomical models, reducing surgery times and improving precision. Beyond implants and surgical tools, bio-printing is an area of growing interest, with 3D Systems (DDD) investing heavily in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. While this technology holds promise for applications like 3D-printed organs and tissue scaffolds, we believe commercial viability is still years away and will require significant investment in R&D and clinical validation.

Source: Materialise

Dental

Dental has been one of the fastest adopters of 3D printing, leveraging the technology for high-precision, customized solutions at scale. One of the most significant applications is the production of molds for clear aligners. 3D Systems (DDD) has been a key partner of Align Technology ALGN 0.00%↑, the maker of Invisalign, supplying high-volume 3D printers to manufacture millions of custom molds used in the thermoforming process for clear aligners. This partnership has demonstrated how 3D printing can revolutionize mass customization, providing a scalable, digital manufacturing solution for personalized dental care. Beyond aligners, dental labs and clinics are increasingly using resin-based 3D printers for crowns, dentures, and surgical guides, enabling same-day production and reducing reliance on traditional methods. As the industry continues to shift toward digitization and same-day dental solutions, 3D printing is expected to play a critical role in the future of personalized dental care.

Source: 3Dnatives.com

Consumer Electronics

3D printing is increasingly being adopted in consumer electronics manufacturing, offering innovative solutions for producing complex components with enhanced efficiency. A notable example is Apple's exploration of additive manufacturing techniques to produce device casings, and other small components. Reports indicate that Apple is testing the use of 3D printers to create the steel chassis for some of its upcoming Apple Watch models, which we highlight below. Apple aims to reduce material usage and production time compared to traditional manufacturing processes.

The potential application of 3D printing in high-volume consumer electronics, such as smartphones, watches and other wearable devices represents a significant shift in manufacturing paradigms. While still in the early stages, the adoption of binder jetting technology for producing components like watch chassis and potentially iPhone casings could lead to more streamlined production lines and customized product offerings. If successful, this approach may set a precedent for mainstream adoption of additive manufacturing in the consumer electronics industry, given the substantial production volumes involved.

Source: iFixit

The Reseller Advantage: Unlocking Key Demand Insights

While OEMs sell directly, the primary go-to-market strategy among the largest players such as Stratasys (SSYS), Desktop Metal (DM), 3D Systems (DDD), HP (HPQ) and Formlabs (private), relies on independent reseller networks to drive sales and customer adoption. These resellers act as regional distribution partners, providing sales, service, and support for systems. One unique advantage of our research is our deep industry experience, which has allowed us to develop strong relationships with these key resellers. These robust relationships enable us to conduct robust channel checks and gather critical demand insights ahead of quarterly earnings reports. As part of our ongoing coverage, we plan to publish a quarterly reseller survey report, providing exclusive data on sales trends, customer sentiment, new technologies and other key market dynamics.

Investable Pure-Play Additive Manufacturing Companies

Below, we highlight pure-play investment opportunities across the additive manufacturing ecosystem, covering OEMs, software developers, service bureaus, and material suppliers. Our focus is on companies whose core business is additive manufacturing, excluding larger industrial players like HP and GE, where 3D printing remains a small, non-material portion of overall revenue. For each pure-play company, we provide a detailed breakdown of its market positioning, growth potential, and key risks, helping investors navigate the competitive landscape and identify the most compelling opportunities in the sector. Additionally, we plan to launch coverage on individual companies with the strongest investment cases.