Additive Manufacturing can be an exciting endeavor for manufacturing and industrial companies. However, it can also be an expensive one. Therefore, if you are looking to invest in an Additive Manufacturing platform, it’s essential to understand the different vendors in the marketplace in order to pick the one that’s best for you.
To help you make the right decision, ABI Research recently conducted a comprehensive competitive assessment of Additive Manufacturing Platforms. Here’s a summary of our findings.
Methodology
The Additive Manufacturing Platform Ranking competitive assessment ranked 10 major vendors of the technology – 3D Systems, Carbon, Desktop Metal, Digital Alloys, EOS, ExOne, GE Additive, HP, Renishaw, and Stratasys – using ABI Research’s proven, unbiased innovation and implementation criteria framework.
Each vendor was analyzed based on a combination of:
Results
Stratasys scored highest in the overall category of implementation and topped four of the twelve ranking criteria. Stratasys was closely followed by 3D Systems, Desktop Metal, and GE Additive in overall rankings. Newcomer Desktop Metal took the overall top spot in innovation.
3D Systems went neck-and-neck with Stratasys in all categories expect partnerships, where it was edged out by Stratasys due to Stratasys’ investment in Desktop Metal, collaboration with companies like Siemens, and work with its own global manufacturing network, which companies like UPS use to automatically invoke AM rather than traditional manufacturing processes based on order volume requests.
Desktop Metal was the surprise frontrunner among companies to more recently enter the AM arena, edging out incumbents like GE Additive and EOS on the powder-bed side and dusting ExOne and HP in terms of performance on binder jetting.
The company took the top spot for innovation due to the applicability of its core technology and the capabilities of its production system relative to others in its category; Desktop Metal is the binder jetting technology category leader, and binder jetting as a technology blows PBF out of the water when it comes to the scale of true production applications. Carbon and GE Additive tied for second and were only 2.5% behind Desktop Metal. Digital Alloys was the surprise fast follower to the runner up position. Digital Alloys has a technology that could displace if not converge with the DED category (where companies like Sciaky play) due to the speed, quality, and affordability of Joule printing,” concluded Martin.
However, while Desktop Metal was the technology category leader, it could be challenged in the long run if GE Additive and others can cultivate a credible metal binder jetting solution. Others to watch are Carbon, which recently launched its L1 production system, and Digital Alloys, which has a savvy GTM strategy that aligns well with the strength of its Joule Printing technology.
Taken together, these platforms will produce more than US$360 billion worth of parts and end products each year and nearly US$2 trillion in sum by the end of the next decade. Download our complete competitive assessment report for an in-depth look at these companies and our exclusive analysis.