So with that out of the way, I work in the additive manufacturing industry for an aerospace company so thought I could offer up some info on the technology differences between between these 3 companies and let you make an investment decision.
Let’s start with DM: Extremely well funded with some big corporate backer and a great marketing team. The core technology behind DM is not really any different than metal injection molding but it doesn’t require the very expensive tooling that MIM requires. Metal powder is either squirted out with a binder (Studio system) or spread out in a layer and a binder used to form the shape in a “green” state (in the case of the Production or Shop systems). The parts are debound and sintered to get to a final metal part. Part quality ranges from crappy in the case of the Studio system (think a desktop plastic printer resolution and layers but in metal) to good (surface finish great, mechanical properties only OK) for the Production system. Universally their Studio system has been poorly received and had tons of problems (not surprising for a very new and nice approach, lots of bugs to work out). I have no direct experience or know of anyone that has the Shop system so can’t comment on that. The Production system is clearly having issues, I’m not a beta tester so I don’t have any direct knowledge but they are years behind when they said they’d be shipping these out. My guess is they are experiencing lots of issues and trying to work them all out in the beta release. They also bought EnvisionTEC, they make DLP polymer printers and DM also has a fiber desktop printer. Both types of printers many other do although EnvisionTEC has a nice suite of materials.
Bear case for DM: the printed MIM just doesn’t work that well. They can’t get over typical MIM part size rules (parts softball size and smaller) and can’t get good enough material properties to gain wide acceptance. The competitors with similar technologies (HP metal system, ExOne, Markforged to a degree, Stratasys has teased a similar tech) get better at it quicker and squeeze out DM. They can’t lock out customers from sourcing the metal powder from other powder suppliers and so they lose the consumeable pipeline.
Bull case for DM: They print MUCH faster than other metal based technologies and that’s a fact. They nail the material properties and get them near wrought, they expand the size limitations a bit more (even if they don’t, there are billions of parts in the world that are softball or smaller) and use their marketing skills to squash the competition. They become the standard for AM in high volume industries that the rest of the AM industry can’t even compete with. They lock down their materials and all customers have to buy the powder metal through them - they print money.
Markforged: They are largely a better prototyping class company compared to typical plastic desktop, Stratasys and DM Studio system. They have a fiber printer which lays in stronger Kevlar, fiberglass or carbon fiber strands to greatly increase strength in the XY plane. This combines the strength of the polymer deposition (speed and cost) but expands the amount of useable applications because it’s stronger. They also have the Metal X which directly competes with DM Studio. I’ve heard their system works well - not amazing but not horrible. From every dealing I’ve had with them they are honest and no BS and they have a pretty talented applications team (we’ve lost a few people to them!).
Bear case for Markforged: they aren’t truly able to differentiate themselves from DM Studio and other higher strength polymer systems. They aren’t able to develop new materials and products that break them into real production applications.
Bull case for Markforged: Their systems become the gold standard in the prototyping space. Prototyping requires much less material scrutiny which leads to quicker adoption. They expand their material and product offering and break into production applications. They have some product that they are working on that’s amazing... who knows!
Now to Velo3D: Velo took a fundamentally different approach to metal laser powder bed fusion. Truly understand and control the process and drive the system using advanced simulations and sensors. Oh, and add some degree of automation to keep machine utilization high. Their system takes a part file and breaks it down layer by layer to understand the needed energy input. This combined with a unique non contact recoating system (doesn’t directly interact with the part that’s building) allows for geometries that cannot be printed in any other system, can be printed by Velo. Their part quality, surface finish combined with the ability to print at very low overhang angles mean Velo can eliminate a ton of support material (in some circumstances no supports are needed at all) which saves a ton of post processing time. All this means Velo can print parts that can’t be printed by others or can print parts economically by the elimination of most supports.
Bear case for Velo: their process isn’t fast. Their system is expensive. If I can print the part on an EOS/SLM/other, it’s going to be more expensive to run on Velo. One of the other major print manufacturers figure out some of the tricks and work around Velo patents and now everyone can print parts that are as good as Velo.
Bull case for Velo: they take this money and expand their production capabilities (their production rates are low right now and backlog large). Branch into tangential AM like DED, increase build speeds through more lasers, etc. Add more automation in order to increase productivity. All the other OEMs can’t figure out their tech and they keep their competitive advantage for what they can print.
In conclusion: So there’s the tech and a bear and bull case for each. They all are in a different categories and can all succeed in their own lane. Feel free to ask any questions and I’ll answer the best I can.
Disclaimer: We are long $VLD, not investment advice, not a registered professional. You could lose everything, buy at your own risks.
2021-07-22 Burlap's Gambles
Author: u/Technical_Amount_624
Comments