With a projected growth to $60 billion by 2034 at a 29% CAGR, why is the market, in your opinion, currently so drastically underrated?

I don’t really think the market is underrated. Some companies struggle due to inefficient business models or inadequate technologies. However, several key companies in metal AM are doing well. I’m thinking in particular about EOS and Nikon SLM Solutions, with Nikon investing significantly in developing the market. But also doing well are many direct energy deposition companies, like DMG Mori and Trumpf, and also multiple smaller ones, like the big five Chinese companies BLT, Farsoon, Eplus, HBD, and Kings3D. Others like 3D Systems, GE, and HP may not grow as fast as expected, but they can overcome any challenge.

At the same time, several metal AM material firms and service companies hold significant growth potential. Further, companies are developing new technologies that could accelerate productivity and, thus, adoption. Meanwhile, adoption is accelerating in specific segments, as demonstrated in our vertical AM reports on aerospace/defense, industrial, energy, and medical/dental.

Misunderstanding and underrating come from the fact that, unfortunately, most of the AM companies went public without a solid business model. In contrast, most of the growing and healthy companies are private businesses. At $60 billion yearly, including materials, hardware, and services revenues globally, this will still be a relatively small industry as far as global manufacturing goes.

What are the key factors for metal services to grow in the next 10 years? 

That’s a difficult question, as there are different factors at different times.

In general, service providers will be driven by the increase in end-user adoption. As these end-users progressively increase their use of AM for part development and internal production processes, they will, at the same time, increasingly turn to external service providers for all production overflow and large batch AM production.

In this case, service providers need to do two things: first, they need to develop complete and efficient end-to-end production workflows to cater to this demand. At the same time, they need to specialize and develop advanced and unique know-how in one or two (three at most) market segments. This should be done progressively, without overinvesting, over a decade. Those who over-invested expecting an “AM revolution” to occur within a couple of years are the ones who are struggling the most today.

Another advantage for service providers, mainly as they increasingly specialize in end-use part production and specific segments, is the ability to coordinate and integrate their digital services within digital “aggregators” that can leverage increasingly advanced AI systems to optimize the AM service offering. In general, however, we already see some of the most specialized and capable service providers in fields such as energy or aerospace continuously expanding their machine park to meet demand.

When it comes to growth in the metal AM market, what’s your sense of that coming from companies replacing traditional metal manufacturing methods with AM instead of companies adding metal AM alongside conventional methods?

It depends on the specific production segments. The AM workflow could entirely replace traditional workflows in aerospace and defense, medical and dental implants, energy, and consumer products such as eyewear and jewelry. Please note that the AM workflow is not just 3D printers but a 3D printing-centric workflow, where subtractive, robotic, and even formative systems revolve around AM part production. In other segments, such as automotive or appliances and most consumer products, AM will continue to be an additional process used mainly for tooling in traditional manufacturing processes.

When you talk about the growing challenge to the current metal AM leaders, like EOS, coming from Chinese companies like Farsoon and others, what form does that challenge take: price, innovation, market penetration?

There are several challenges. One is that Chinese companies tend to execute their strategy very rapidly and effectively without spending much time questioning it. That can be an advantage in AM, especially as their domestic market is developing rapidly and can leverage a centralized government support strategy. At the same time, once the physiological limit in receptivity of the Chinese market (as in any market) is reached – and we are now near that point – these companies will be increasingly pushing their business outwards toward Western markets, offering competitive pricing and increasingly valid technologies. On the other hand, Western companies – because they do question their strategy – continue to innovate more (in terms of developing radically new approaches to metal AM) and are retaining that advantage.

Will efforts to limit technology export for national security reasons, for example, in the US, dampen adoption or innovation in metal AM? If not, why not?

I don’t see that happening any more than it was already happening. I don’t think strategic technologies could easily be exported and imported under any administration. It may be more “outspoken” today, but I don’t believe much has changed. For sure, AM plays right into the idea of “reshoring” production everywhere, but I also think that is mostly an idea rather than an actual practice.