Beginner’s Guide to Metal 3D Printing

Metal 3D printing is advancing rapidly—with faster build speeds, better material performance, and wider application areas. This guide will show you how to get the most out of metal additive manufacturing(AM): we will talk about the main types of metal 3D printing technologies, the common materials, and what it all costs. We will also compare metal AM with subtractive (CNC machining) and formative (metal casting) methods so you can choose the right process for your part, your budget, and your timeline.

What Is Metal 3D Printing ?

Similar to all other 3D printing processes (such as polymer 3D printing), metal 3D printers build parts by adding material a layer at a time based on a digital 3D design — hence the term additive manufacturing. Only this time, the process uses metal powder, wire, or polymerbound filament instead of plastics.

This way, parts can be built with geometries that are impossible to manufacture with traditional methods and without the need for specialized tooling such as molds or cutting tools. Just as important, increasing geometric complexity has little impact on build cost, so organic, topologyoptimized structures are practical. The resulting parts are lighter (typically a 25%–50% weight reduction) and often stiffer, which is critical for aerospace and other highperformance fields.

This design freedom also enables assembly consolidation: multiple components,and all their fasteners, joints, and leak paths,can become a single printed part that performs several functions at once. Labor drops, lead times shrink, and maintenance is simpler because there is less to assemble, align, or service. That said, metal 3D printing is still expensive compared to many traditional methods, and it doesn’t yet compete on unit cost at higher volumes.

A Brief History of Metal 3D Printing

In the late 1980s, Dr. Carl Deckard at the University of Texas developed the first laser sintering 3D printer, initially designed for plastics. This technology became the basis for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), a method that would later extend to metal 3D printing.

In 1991, Dr. Ely Sachs from MIT introduced a 3D printing process now known as binder jetting. This method of metal binder jetting was licensed to ExOne in 1995.

In 1995, the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany filed the first patent for laser melting of metals, which laid the foundation for Selective Laser Melting (SLM), one of the most widely used methods for metal 3D printing today. During this period, companies like EOS and various universities played key roles in further developing the technology.

Metal 3D printing grew slowly in the early 2000s due to the high cost of equipment and materials. However, around 2012, as the patents for key technologies like SLM, DMLS, and EBM began to expire, licensing fees dropped, opening the door for new competitors. This shift sparked innovation and attracted major investments from companies like GE, HP, and DMG Mori, lowering costs and accelerating adoption across various industries.

Today, according to the Precedence Research report, the global metal 3D printing market was valued at USD 9.66 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow from USD 12.04 billion in 2025 to USD 87.33 billion by 2034, with a CAGR of 24.63%. The market is driven by demand for rapid prototyping, customized and complex components, and growing usage in aerospace and automotive sectors.

Types of Metal 3D Printing Technologies

There are many metal 3D printing technologies on the market, but four of the most widely used are Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), Binder Jetting, Metal Fused Deposition Modeling (Metal FDM), and Directed Energy Deposition (DED). Broadly, they fall into two mechanisms: melting and sintering.

PBF and DED melt metal feedstock (powder or wire) with highenergy sources，like lasers, electron beams, or arcs, to produce nearfully dense parts. By contrast, Metal FDM and Binder Jetting first create a “green” part with a polymer binder, then debind and sinter it below the melting point. Final density is typically lower than fully melted processes, and additional postprocessing is almost always required.

Powder Bed Fusion (PBF)

Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) is widely regarded as the most commonly used metal 3D printing family. Among these, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS), which have been in use for over 20 years, are the most technologically mature metal 3D printing processes today, followed by Electron Beam Melting (EBM), another key method, particularly used for titanium alloys in aerospace and medical applications.

The PBF process begins by preheating the build chamber, which is first filled with an inert gas, to an optimal temperature. A thin layer of metal powder is then spread across the build platform. The laser (in SLM and DMLS) or electron beam (in EBM) is directed at the powder bed, selectively melting or fusing the powder particles according to the part's design. The particles fuse together to form the first layer, and the platform is then lowered slightly. A new layer of powder is spread over the previous one, and the process is repeated layer by layer until the part is fully built.

Since build temperatures are very high (often >1000 °C for many alloys), supports are usually required to hold the part in place and prevent warping from thermal stress. After cooling, the excess unmelted powder is removed (brushed, blasted, or vacuumed off), and the supports are removed by cutting or wire EDM. The part is then heattreated to relieve residual stresses and enhance material properties. Finally, depending on requirements, the part may need additional finishing such as CNC machining, polishing, or other surface treatments to achieve the desired surface quality and dimensional accuracy.

Characteristics of Common Powder Bed Fusion Methods

Here’s a detailed comparison table for the three main PBF metal 3D printing technologies:

Property	Selective Laser Melting (SLM)	Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)	Electron Beam Melting (EBM)
Energy Source	Laser	Laser	Electron Beam
Materials Used	Spherical metal powders with a single melting temperature; include aluminum alloys, titanium, stainless steel, tool steel, and certain alloys	Spherical metal powders with variable melting points; include stainless steel, titanium alloys, nickel alloys, precious metals, and tool steels	Spherical metal powders such as titanium alloys, cobalt-chromium alloys, nickel superalloys, and other high-performance materials
Process	Laser fully melts the powder to create dense parts	Laser sintering (melts powder but does not fully liquefy it)	Electron beam melts powder in a vacuum environment
Build Volume	Typically small to medium (varies by machine)	Typically small to medium (varies by machine)	Typically larger build volumes available compared to SLM/DMLS
Build Speed	Moderate (depends on laser power and part complexity)	Moderate (varies with material and part size)	Slower (due to the use of electron beam and vacuum environment)
Printed Part Properties	Internal porosity, less than 0.2 - 0.5%; high density and excellent mechanical strength	The part properties are similar to SLM, but slight porosity may be more noticeable due to the sintering process	The porosity is generally low, but it can be slightly higher than SLM due to the slower build speed and larger layer thickness in the process
Dimensional Accuracy	± 0.1 mm	± 0.1 mm	± 0.1 mm
Typical Build Size	250 x 150 x 150 mm ( up to 500 x 280 x 360 mm)	250 x 150 x 150 mm ( up to 500 x 280 x 360 mm)	500 x 500 x 380 mm or larger
Common Layer Thickness	20-50μm	20-50μm	50-150 μm
Support	Always required	Always required	Always required
Typical Surface Roughness	Ra 8 - 10μm	Ra 8 - 10μm	Ra 20-60 μm
Cost Per Part	$$$$$	$$$$$	$$$$$$
Key Applications	Parts with high geometric complexity (organic, topology optimized structures) that require excellent material properties for increasing the efficiency of the most demanding applications	Similar to SLM	High-performance applications that require strong, resilient parts, particularly in aerospace and medical implants, where titanium alloys and other high-strength materials are needed

Binder Jetting

Binder Jetting was originally used to create full-color prototypes and models from sandstone. Over time, it has gained popularity for manufacturing metal parts, particularly due to its batch production capabilities. During the metal binder jetting process, a thin layer of metal powder is spread across the build platform. A carriage equipped with inkjet nozzles then passes over the powder bed, depositing droplets of a binding agent (typically a mixture of polymer and wax) to bond the metal particles together. Once a layer is completed, the build platform moves down, and a new layer of powder is applied. This process repeats until the entire part is built.

The printing step in metal binder jetting occurs at room temperature, eliminating issues like thermal effects such as warping and internal stresses that can occur in processes like DMLS and SLM. Support structures are not required. However, the printed part remains in a "green" state, meaning it is still fragile and requires further processing.

There are two common post-processing steps used to transform the "green" part into a fully solid metal component:

• Infiltration: After removing the binder, the part is considered “brown” and has significant internal porosity (around 70%). The “brown” part is then heated in an industrial oven with a lowmeltingpoint metal (often bronze), which fills the internal voids, resulting in a bimetallic part. Although this method can improve strength, it is less commonly used today because its material properties remain inferior to those of fully sintered parts and its mechanical and thermal performance is not as well documented.

• Sintering: Now the preferred post-process, the “green” part is placed in a furnace where the binder is burned off and the metal powder particles fuse together into a fully dense component. The part typically shrinks by about 20% during sintering, so parts are printed slightly larger to compensate.

Characteristics of Metal Binder Jetting

Property	Metal Binder Jetting
Materials Used	Currently limited to stainless steels (e.g. 316L, 174PH), tool steels (e.g. H13), bronze/copper alloys, and Inconel 625
Build Speed	Fastest among all the metal 3D printing technologies;beds are typically densely packed with many small parts per cycle
Printed Part Properties	~1–2% residual porosity after sintering; tensile strength comparable to cast metal, but fatigue life is significantly lower due to internal voids
Dimensional Accuracy	± 0.2 mm (± 0.1 after trials)
Typical Build Size	250 × 175 × 200 mm (up to 400 × 300 × 200 mm)
Common Layer Thickness	Early systems ran 35–50 µm, highthroughput systems up to 100 µm)
Support	Not required
Typical Surface Roughness	Ra 10–15 µm on assintered parts
Cost per Part	$$$(faster builds, and no support waste）
Key Applications	Low to medium runs of functional prototypes and complex components where throughput and unit cost matter more than maximum mechanical performance

Metal Fused Deposition Modeling (Metal FDM)

Metal Extrusion is a variation of the classic FDM process for plastics, but instead of thermoplastics, it uses metal filaments or rods that typically consist of metal particles bound together by polymer and/or wax, so it is sometimes called Filament Material Extrusion.

This rod or filament is extruded through a heated nozzle and deposited layer-by-layer to build a part based on the CAD model. At the same time, support structures are built if necessary. The interface between the support and the part is printed with a ceramic support material, which is easy to manually remove later. The resulting “green” part needs to be post-processed to become metal using steps similar (but not identical) to Binder Jetting. The “green” part is first soaked or thermally treated to remove most of the polymer/wax binder (debinding), then sintered in a furnace so the metal particles fuse into a dense, fully metallic piece. During sintering the part shrinks roughly 15–20% in each direction, so the CAD model is scaled up in advance and some trial tuning may be needed.

Characteristics of Metal Fused Deposition Modeling

Property	Metal Fused Deposition Modeling
Materials Used	Currently very limited to 316L, 174PH, H13, copper/bronze alloys, and Inconel 625
Build Speed	Moderate; slower than Binder Jetting, but setup/iteration is cheaper and simpler than SLM
Printed Part Properties	~90–97% density (up to ~98% with HIP); tensile strength roughly MIM/castlike, typically 20–40% lower than wrought; fatigue strength reduced by residual porosity
Dimensional Accuracy	±0.30 mm typical; ±0.15–0.20 mm achievable after tuning and shrinkage compensation
Typical Build Size	250 × 220 × 200 mm
Common Layer Thickness	100–200 µm
Support	Required
Typical Surface Roughness	Ra 10–20 µm on assintered surfaces
Cost per Part	$$ (low machine/material cost)
Key Applications	Functional metal prototypes, custom tooling, and oneoff/lowvolume parts where cost and simplicity matter more than peak performance

Directed Energy Deposition (DED)

Directed Energy Deposition (DED) uses a focused heat source,typically a laser, electron beam, or electric/plasma arc, to create a melt pool on the workpiece while metal powder or wire is fed into it, building material bead by bead. Because the print head can move freely (often on multiaxis gantries or robots) and isn’t confined by a powder bed, DED is well suited to repairing or adding features to existing parts and producing large, nearnetshape components.The tradeoffs are coarse bead geometry, rough surfaces, and significant thermal input that can introduce residual stresses, so parts usually require heat treatment and finish machining to meet final tolerances and properties.

Characteristics of Directed Energy Deposition (DED)

Property	Directed Energy Deposition
Energy Source	Focused laser, electron beam, or electric/plasma arc
Materials Used	Similar alloy range to SLM; standard welding wires and many weldable powders are usable
Build Speed	Comparable to (or below) Binder Jetting
Printed Part Properties	~95–99% density (wire feeds often higher than powder); weldlike microstructure with directional properties; tensile strength can approach wrought after proper heat treatment
Dimensional Accuracy	±0.5–1.0 mm typical
Typical Build Size	Generally the largest of the four
Common Layer Thickness	0.3–1.5 mm (wire) or 0.2–0.8 mm (powder), depending on nozzle and power
Support	Generally not required; overhangs handled via path planning or temporary fixtures
Typical Surface Roughness	Ra >20–40 µm
Cost per Part	$$–$$$ (equipment is expensive, but high deposition rate lowers cost for large parts/repairs)
Key Applications	Repair/refurbishment, feature addition, large structural components, nearnetshape blanks for subsequent machining

Materials for Metal 3D Printing

While widely used engineering metals such as stainless steels, titanium, and aluminum alloys are available for metal 3D printing, many other highperformance or custom alloys used in conventional manufacturing are still harder to source or qualify for AM. Because printable powders are typically gasatomized to be spherical, narrowly sized, and low in oxygen, they’re costly to make, available in fewer alloys, and still produced at relatively low yield. That said, the number of metals available for metal 3D printing is growing rapidly. Engineers can today select from alloys including nickelbased and cobaltchromium systems—materials that are notoriously difficult to machine traditionally.

Below are some examples of common AM metals, with stainless steels, titanium, and aluminum still among the most widely used:

• Stainless steels
• Tool steels
• Titanium alloys
• Aluminum alloys
• Nickelbased superalloys
• Cobaltchromium alloys
• Copperbased alloys
• Precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, etc.)
• Exotic metals (palladium, tantalum, etc.)

Metal 3D Printing vs Traditional Manufacturing

When you only need a few complex, highperformance metal parts, toolingbased methods are slow and costly. Metal 3D printing avoids tooling and makes complex geometry straightforward. For simple designs or large quantities, CNC machining or casting is usually cheaper and faster. Below is an overview of how metal 3D printing compares with subtractive (CNC machining) and formative (casting) processes across key aspects.

Aspect	Metal 3D Printing	CNC Machining	Metal Casting
Design Freedom	Excellent for complex/internal channels, lattices, part consolidation	Limited by tool access & cutter geometry	Good for organic external shapes, but needs draft/cores and struggles with fully enclosed channels
Tooling / Setup	No molds or cutting tools; slicing/support setup only	No molds, but fixturing & CAM programming needed	Requires molds/dies/cores; high upfront time & cost
Lead Time (Prototype)	Hours–days	Days (programming + machining)	Weeks–months (tooling build)
Unit Cost vs. Volume	Flat/high per part; scales poorly at high volume	Decreases with volume,but each part still needs machine time.	Very low at high volume; excellent economies of scale after tooling
Dimensional Accuracy	Moderate; shrinkage/thermal effects, process dependent (±0.1–0.3 mm typical for PBF).	High; ±0.01–0.05 mm common on precision features	Moderate; ±0.1–0.5 mm typical (investment < sand)
Surface Finish (as-made)	Rougher (Ra ~5–20+ µm); finishing often required	Good–excellent	Fair–rough; usually needs machining/polishing
Mechanical Properties	Can approach wrought strength after proper HT/HIP, but fatigue often lower due to porosity & surface; stress relief/HIP recommended	Uses wrought stock → predictable, high mechanical performance	Cast microstructure; tensile and fatigue properties generally below wrought but can be improved with heat treatment (and sometimes HIP)
Part Size	Limited by build chamber (except DED)	Limited by machine envelope; large mills exist	Very large parts feasible (sand casting, investment casting)
Material Range	Growing but still fewer qualified alloys	Almost any machinable metal	Very broad; most alloys castable, though some are difficult
Waste / Material Efficiency	Low; unused powder often recycled	High chip waste (unless recycled separately)	Moderate waste (gating/riser scrap)
Postprocessing	Support removal, heat treatment, HIP, machining for tolerance	Deburring, possible heat treatment, finishing	Fettling, heat treatment, machining to final tolerance
Best Use Cases	Complex, lowvolume, highvalue parts; rapid iteration; internal channels/lattices	Precision parts with tight tolerances, moderate volumes	Highvolume or very large parts where tooling cost can be amortized

Choose Metal Printing Over Traditional Manufacturing

1. Geometry Drives Performance

Internal channels, lattice infill, conformal cooling paths, and consolidated, onepiece assemblies are hard or impossible to machine or cast.

2. Low Quantities

If you need only 1–50 parts such as prototypes, pilot runs, or spares, toolingbased methods rarely pay off. Additive manufacturing avoids molds and dies, keeping unit cost relatively flat and reasonable at very low volumes.

3. Fast Design Iteration

Just update the CAD file, reslice, and print—no new fixtures or molds. CNC can be reprogrammed but often still needs fixture/tool changes, while casting almost always demands new or modified tooling.

4. Lead Time Matters More Than Unit Cost

A complex metal part can often be printed in a few days—far quicker than the 6–8 weeks needed to build and prove out casting tools. For AOG (aircraft on ground) situations or urgent tooling, speed trumps perpiece price.

5. Toughtomachine Alloys

Inconel, CoCr and other superalloys are expensive to cut: they’re hard, workharden quickly, and destroy tools. Metal 3D printing skips most cutting, avoiding tool wear and heat issues. Highenergy processes like SLM or EBM can even build components from ultrahighmeltingpoint metals such as tungsten (3422 °C) that are nearly impossible to machine efficiently.

6. Minimize Material Waste (BuytoFly Ratio)

Traditional machining can scrap 80–90% of an aerospace billet. With powderbed AM, most unused powder can be sieved and reused, so you’re much closer to nearnet shape; for example, a titanium bracket might need only ~1.2× its final mass instead of ~6×.

7. Ondemand or Onsite Production

Printing spares where you use them slashes inventory and logistics. An offshore rig can print a custom stainless valve handle on site instead of waiting weeks for a machined replacement.

8. Repair or Add Features to Existing Parts

Directed Energy Deposition rebuilds worn turbine blade tips or adds bosses to a costly housing. After deposition, CNC finishing restores exact profiles, often cheaper than remanufacturing the whole part.

9. Topology Optimization and Lightweighting

AM lets you realize organic, optimized geometries that remove nonloadbearing mass. An aerospace hinge redesigned with lattice infill can reduce weight by about 40% while maintaining strength, a result impractical to mill or cast.

10. Assembly Consolidation

Print one integrated part instead of machining and bolting together many pieces. For example, a 12piece hydraulic manifold with multiple leak paths can become a single printed block with internal channels. This means fewer fasteners, fewer joints, less assembly time, and higher reliability.

11. Custom or Graded Materials

Need a niche alloy or different properties in different zones? Some AM systems (especially DED) can switch powders or wires during the build to create composition gradients. Research teams print Ti–Nb implants with softer regions for bone integration and stiffer sections for load bearing, all in one build.

The Cost of Metal 3D Printing

Metal 3D printing is generally more expensive than plastic because costs are higher in three areas: equipment, materials, and postprocessing operations. The sections below discuss each in detail.

Equipment Cost

Metal printers are far more complex: highpower lasers or electron beams, inertgas or vacuum chambers, multilaser scan systems, precision optics, and controlled powder delivery—all far pricier than FDM or photopolymer machines. Typical price ranges by technology:

• SLM / DMLS (laser powderbed fusion): $300,000–$2,000,000+
• Directed Energy Deposition (DED): $200,000–$1,000,000+
• Metal Binder Jetting (printer plus debind/sinter units): $300,000–$800,000+
• Metal FDM / Filament Material Extrusion (printer plus debind/sinter units): $100,000–$200,000

Material Cost

Metal 3D printing materials also cost more than typical plastics. Among metal feedstocks, atomized powder is the most expensive because it must be produced with high sphericity, a narrow particle-size range, and very low oxygen content. Wire for DED is usually cheaper than powder, while polymerbound metal filament (used in Metal FDM) is cheaper still.

• Atomized powder (SLM, Binder Jetting): roughly $100–$600 per kg, depending on the alloy (stainless at the low end, Ti/Ni at the high end)
• Wire (DED): roughly $20–$80 per kg; powder-fed DED is closer to powder-bed prices
• Polymer-bound metal filament (Metal FDM): roughly $50–$150 per kg

Post-processing

Support removal, stressrelief cycles, HIP, CNC finishing, and surface treatments can add hundreds or even thousands of dollars per build or per part. Binder Jetting and Metal FDM also require debinding and sintering, which add furnace time and cost.

The table below is a breakdown of typical DMLS/SLM cost contributors. Note how postprocessing makes up a significant share of the total.

Production Step	Operation	Typical Cost*
Manufacturing	Metal powder	$200–$500 per kg (material dependent)
	Machine time (one build plate)	$2,000–$4,000
Postprocessing	Stress relief cycle	$500–$600 per build
	Part/support removal	$100–$200 per part
	Heat treatment / HIP	$500–$2,500 per build
	CNC machining	$500–$2,000 per part
	Surface finishing / coating	$200–$500 per part

* Actual numbers vary with geometry, batch size, material, region, and how the shop allocates overhead. A single build plate may hold 1–12 parts (or more) depending on part size.

In addition, consumable inert gas, furnace and laser power, powder sieving and testing, dustexplosion/oxidation safety measures, and ongoing maintenance and calibration all make the operating cost of metal 3D printing significantly higher than that of plastic printing.

Conclusion

The potential of metal 3D printing goes well beyond today’s aerospace and medical uses. As more alloys, smarter machines, and easier postprocessing come online, companies across many sectors will use it to validate realworld performance and cut costs on customized, complex metal parts. If you’re thinking about expanding your capabilities with metal AM, get in touch. Our team can help you decide when and how it makes sense.