{"id":6942,"date":"2026-09-22T02:17:22","date_gmt":"2026-09-22T02:17:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lyafs.com\/?p=6942"},"modified":"2026-09-24T09:34:39","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T09:34:39","slug":"desktop-metal-alternatives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lyafs.com\/fr\/blog\/desktop-metal-alternatives\/","title":{"rendered":"Desktop Metal Alternatives: Metal Binder Jetting Systems Compared (2026)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

If you are running a Desktop Metal binder jetting system, or you were about to buy one, the question in 2026 is no longer “is the technology good?” It is “who owns the platform, who supports it, and what happens to my roadmap?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article answers that directly. It covers what changed at Desktop Metal, what the current ownership structure means for buyers, and how 3DPTEK’s open-platform metal binder jetting systems compare for shops that need a second source or a first machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Direct Answer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Desktop Metal is now part of Nano Dimension<\/strong>, following an acquisition completed in April 2025<\/strong>. Its metal binder jetting business did not disappear. It was absorbed into a larger group that has been consolidating the additive manufacturing market for several years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a buyer, that creates three practical options:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Stay<\/strong> with the platform and accept the roadmap risk of a post-acquisition integration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Move to MIM or casting<\/strong>, giving up the tooling-free economics that made binder jetting attractive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Move to an open-material binder jetting platform.<\/strong> Same process, no vendor lock-in on powder or binder.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Most of the enquiries we receive are about the third option. This page lays out how to evaluate it honestly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why Buyers Are Looking for Desktop Metal Alternatives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    To be clear about what this article is and is not: it is not an argument that Desktop Metal machines perform badly. They do not. The X-Series is genuine production binder jetting hardware, and the installed base is real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The reason buyers start looking is ownership risk<\/strong>, and it shows up in three specific places.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Consumable continuity.<\/strong> Binder jetting is a two-part consumable business: powder and binder are formulated as a pair, with a validated sintering profile. When a platform changes hands, the binder formulation, its supply chain and its pricing are all subject to review. That is not a rumour; it is a normal consequence of integrating two companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Roadmap direction.<\/strong> The acquiring company has said publicly that it is prioritising “highest-potential product lines” after a strategic review. That is a reasonable thing for a parent company to say, and it is also exactly the sentence a buyer should read twice before committing to a five-year platform decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Service and spare parts.<\/strong> Hardware support depends on a service organisation that has been through two acquisitions in four years. Response times and spare-part availability are the first things to degrade during integration, and the last things to show up on a datasheet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    None of this means “do not buy.” It means know what you are buying<\/strong>, and price the risk into the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What Actually Happened to Desktop Metal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The timeline matters, because the current structure is the result of several separate transactions, not one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Date<\/th>\nEvent<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    2021<\/td>\nDesktop Metal acquires ExOne<\/strong>, combining the two largest US metal binder jetting platforms<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    July 2024<\/td>\nDesktop Metal and Nano Dimension<\/strong> sign a merger agreement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    December 2024<\/td>\nNew Nano Dimension leadership assumes responsibility and begins a strategic review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3 April 2025<\/strong><\/td>\nNano Dimension completes the acquisition of Desktop Metal<\/strong>, transaction valued at $179.3 million, or $5.295 per share<\/strong>, following all regulatory approvals<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2025<\/td>\nNano Dimension also pursues its pending merger with Markforged<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    October 2025<\/td>\nExOne and voxeljet are unified under ExOne Global Holdings<\/strong>, consolidating the large-format sand binder jetting market<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    A few things are worth drawing out of that table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The combined company reported revenue of over $200 million<\/strong> for the year ended 31 December 2024, on preliminary unaudited results. This is not a distressed asset sale of a failing product line. It is consolidation of an industry that grew faster than its end markets could absorb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The integration details came after the close, not before.<\/strong> Nano Dimension stated that it would provide additional detail on integration plans and financial outlook following a comprehensive strategic review. If you are buying today, you are buying into a platform whose product roadmap is still being decided by its new owner. That is the single most important fact on this page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    ExOne and voxeljet are now one business.<\/strong> For foundries, this means the sand-side competitive landscape has narrowed too, which is a separate article in itself (see our ExOne alternatives<\/a> and voxeljet alternatives<\/a> guides).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Note on naming:<\/strong> Desktop Metal’s ExOne sand systems are marketed today under the ExOne name. This article deals only with the metal<\/strong> binder jetting line. The sand side is covered in the guides linked above.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The Desktop Metal Metal Binder Jetting Lineup<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    If you are evaluating alternatives, it helps to be precise about which machine you are replacing, because the Desktop Metal portfolio spans more than one process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    System<\/th>\nProcess<\/th>\nPositioning<\/th>\nNotes<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Studio System<\/strong><\/td>\nBound Metal Deposition (BMD)<\/td>\nOffice \/ lab<\/td>\nExtrudes bound metal rod, not binder jetting. Do not compare it to a production BJ machine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Shop System<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nMachine shops, low-volume production<\/td>\nThe entry point into Desktop Metal binder jetting<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    X-Series (X25Pro, X160Pro)<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nIndustrial production<\/td>\nThe direct comparable to 3DPTEK’s J400P \/ J800P class<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    P-1<\/strong><\/td>\nLaser powder bed fusion (SLM)<\/td>\nIndustrial<\/td>\nA laser system, not binder jetting. Compare to our AFS-M series instead<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Furnace<\/strong><\/td>\nSintering<\/td>\nPost-processing<\/td>\nDebinding and sintering for binder jet parts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    TurboFuse<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder technology<\/td>\nX25Pro consumable<\/td>\nA binder formulation, not a machine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    The practical takeaway:<\/strong> if your requirement is “production metal binder jetting,” the machine you are actually comparing is the X-Series<\/strong>. Everything else in the portfolio is either a different process or a supporting component.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Verify before you compare.<\/strong> Desktop Metal publishes its own datasheets, and X-Series configurations have changed since the line launched in 2022. We deliberately do not reproduce competitor build volumes or throughput figures here. Get the current numbers from the vendor, because a wrong number in a comparison table is worse than no number.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The Alternative Landscape at a Glance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The realistic shortlist for metal binder jetting in 2026 is smaller than most buyers expect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Option<\/th>\nProcess<\/th>\nMaterial system<\/th>\nWhere it fits<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Desktop Metal X-Series<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nSemi-closed<\/td>\nExisting installed base; buyers who want the incumbent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3DPTEK-J800P<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nOpen<\/strong> (30+ qualified alloys)<\/td>\nProduction BJ, largest build in the 3DPTEK line<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3DPTEK-J400P<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nOpen<\/strong><\/td>\nMid-size production and development<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3DPTEK-J160R<\/strong><\/td>\nBinder jetting<\/td>\nOpen<\/strong><\/td>\nBenchtop R&D, universities, material qualification<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3DPTEK AFS-M series<\/strong><\/td>\nSLM (laser)<\/td>\nOpen<\/strong><\/td>\nWhen the part genuinely needs full density as-printed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    MIM<\/strong><\/td>\nMetal injection moulding<\/td>\nn\/a<\/td>\nHigh-volume identical parts only; tooling required<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Casting<\/strong><\/td>\nSand or investment<\/td>\nn\/a<\/td>\nLarge parts, lower precision, tooling or patternless<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Two structural observations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Binder jetting has not become a crowded market.<\/strong> Between acquisitions, the list of independent production-scale metal binder jetting platforms is short. That is precisely why ownership questions matter more here than in, say, FDM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Open material systems are the differentiating axis.<\/strong> If two machines have comparable build envelopes and resolution, the variable that decides your five-year cost is whether you can buy powder and binder on the open market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3DPTEK J800P: The Direct X25Pro Alternative<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The J800P is the machine we position against production-class metal binder jetting systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Verified specifications:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Parameter<\/th>\nJ800P<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Build volume<\/td>\n800 \u00d7 500 \u00d7 400 mm<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Printheads<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Print resolution<\/td>\nup to 1200 dpi<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Throughput<\/td>\n8 L\/h metal<\/strong>, 12 L\/h silicon carbide<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Dimensional accuracy<\/td>\n\u00b10.1 mm<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Materials<\/td>\nStainless steels, titanium, copper, tungsten, high-temperature alloys, silicon carbide<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Material system<\/td>\nOpen<\/strong> (30+ qualified alloys)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Three things about that spec sheet are worth dwelling on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The build envelope is the headline.<\/strong> An 800 \u00d7 500 \u00d7 400 mm build box changes what you can put in a single build. For shops consolidating small parts into batch builds, volume per cycle is the number that drives cost per part, more than printhead count or resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Copper and tungsten print naturally.<\/strong> These are materials that laser powder bed systems struggle with because of reflectivity and thermal stress. Binder jetting deposits binder onto powder rather than melting it, so reflective and high-temperature materials are not a problem in the same way. If your part list includes thermal-management or shielding components, this is a real capability difference, not a marketing one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The material platform is open.<\/strong> This is the structural difference from a semi-closed system. You can qualify your own powder and binder combination rather than buying a validated consumable pair from the OEM. Over a machine’s life, consumable cost typically exceeds the capital cost, which is why openness matters more than any single spec.<\/p>\n\n\n

    \n
    \"Metal<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    Smaller-Batch Alternatives: J400P and J160R<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Not every buyer needs 800 mm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3DPTEK-J400P.<\/strong> Build volume 380 \u00d7 380 \u00d7 300 mm<\/strong>, 3 printheads, 3.6 L\/h (metal) and 5.3 L\/h (SiC) throughput, 0.03\u20130.2 mm layer thickness, \u00b10.1 mm accuracy. This is the machine for shops moving from prototyping into production without jumping straight to a large-format system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3DPTEK-J160R.<\/strong> Build volume 160 \u00d7 65 \u00d7 65 mm<\/strong>, single printhead, 165 cc\/h throughput, 0.03\u20130.2 mm layers. This is a benchtop R&D system: universities, material qualification labs, and manufacturers who want to validate a binder jetting process on their own alloys before committing capital to production hardware.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The reason these matter in a Desktop Metal comparison is that the entry point into production binder jetting is often a smaller machine than buyers assume.<\/strong> If your annual volume is a few thousand parts, a J400P-class system will get you there for materially less capital than a large-format machine, and the process parameters scale.<\/p>\n\n\n

    \n
    \"Meal<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    If You Need SLM Instead: AFS-M Series<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Half of the conversations that start as “Desktop Metal alternative” turn out to be about the P-1<\/strong>, which is a laser powder bed system, not binder jetting. If that is your case, the right comparison is our SLM line, not the J800P.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3DPTEK AFS-M120 \/ M120X \/ M120XT<\/strong> are selective laser melting systems built around a 500 W IPG fibre laser<\/strong>, producing fully dense parts as-printed, with no debinding or sintering step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3DPTEK AFS-M300XAS<\/strong> uses the same 500 W fibre laser platform with in-process CNC hybrid<\/strong> capability, so machining happens inside the build cycle on the same machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The decision between the two technologies is not about which is better. In simple terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n