3D printing moved from an emerging consumer technology to an established manufacturing option, but adoption has varied sharply by company size, use case, and geography. The figures below span 2009–2019 source reporting, 2014 and 2017 surveys, and longer-range forecasts, so each period and forecast status is identified.
Contents
- Market history and activity
- Enterprise adoption in Europe
- Manufacturer adoption and company size
- Product development, production, and supply chains
- Consumer equipment, materials, energy, and waste
- Forecasts and manufacturing share
Market history and activity
The consumer market became more accessible during the 2009–2015 expansion period. MakerBot released a consumer 3D printer priced at $750 in 2009. Between 2010 and 2015, bare-bones consumer printers fell to $500–$600. By July 2019, a basic plastic 3D printer could be purchased online for less than $150, while basic plastic filament cost less than $9 per pound. These are price observations for the cited periods, not a current retail-price benchmark. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
Community activity also expanded. Thingiverse had more than 2 million active users in 2015. At the same time, the industry showed uneven commercial performance: stocks of four leading 3D-printing companies lost 71%–80% of their market value over the 17 months ending in June 2015. Stratasys laid off 36% of its MakerBot division staff between January and October 2015. The contrast illustrates why user activity and investor performance should not be treated as interchangeable measures of market health. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
Innovation activity increased even during that volatile period. Annual grants of 3D-printing-related patents rose from 247 in 2010 to 545 in 2015. Private industry accounted for an estimated 90% of additive-manufacturing patents through 2015. The patent figures describe grants and ownership through 2015; they do not establish the commercial success of the patented technologies. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
The 2015 equipment split was also notable. Industrial 3D-printer unit sales declined 2.3%, while consumer 3D-printer unit sales increased 49.4%. Later estimates put 2018 worldwide sales at 19,285 industrial 3D printers and 591,079 consumer 3D printers. More than 140,000 industrial printers and more than 2 million consumer printers had been sold worldwide cumulatively by 2018, although the consumer total excluded some kits and self-assembled machines. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
The same review estimated global 3D-printing industry revenue at $9.975 billion in 2018 and reported average annual industry-revenue growth of 26.9% over the approximately 30 years covered by its 2019 review, roughly 1988–2018. The revenue estimate and the long-run growth rate use different time spans: one is a 2018 level, while the other summarizes a historical period.
Enterprise adoption in Europe
Eurostat’s 2017 survey, published in 2018, found that 4% of EU enterprises with at least 10 persons employed used 3D printing. Company size mattered substantially: use reached 13% among large EU enterprises but was 3% among small EU enterprises. These percentages describe enterprises in the survey population, not all businesses or individual makers.
Finland reported the highest enterprise use in the EU at 7%. Denmark, Malta, the United Kingdom, and Belgium each reported 6%. At the lower end, Cyprus and Latvia each reported 1%. Estonia, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Poland each reported 2%. The geographic values are reported survey results for 2017, published in 2018, rather than current adoption estimates. 4% of EU enterprises used 3D printing, with highest share in Finland, lowest in Cyprus and Latvia
Among EU enterprises that used 3D printing, the leading application was internal product development. Fifty-seven percent used it for prototypes or models for internal use. Thirty-two percent used it for prototypes or models for sale, 27% used it for goods in their own production process, and 17% used it for goods other than prototypes or models to sell. These are shares among adopting enterprises, so they should not be read as percentages of all EU enterprises.
The application mix places product design at the center of early business use. Internal prototypes and models were reported more often than production goods, suggesting that design teams could adopt the technology even when broad factory-scale deployment remained limited. The survey does not show how frequently each enterprise printed, how much it spent, or which printer technology it used.
Manufacturer adoption and company size
A February 2014 survey of manufacturers reported that 66.7% were adopting 3D printing in some way, including experimentation, prototyping, or final-product production. Another 24.7% planned to adopt it in the future, while 8.6% said they did not plan to adopt it. The survey therefore used a broad definition of adoption that included experimentation and should not be compared directly with the narrower EU enterprise-use measure without noting the methodological difference. Introduction: 3D printing’s growth spurt
Timing expectations among the manufacturers that reported future plans were distributed across several horizons. The survey recorded 5.2% planning adoption within one year, 10.3% within three years, and 9.2% more than three years later. These are expectations recorded in February 2014, not evidence that the plans were completed.
Firm size was another dividing line. The report said 59% of enterprises with fewer than 500 employees were implementing 3D printing in some way, compared with 75% of enterprises with more than 500 employees. Fifteen percent of smaller surveyed firms said they had no plans to use 3D printing, compared with 2% of larger firms. The results point to a relationship between scale and adoption readiness, but they do not identify whether size itself, available capital, engineering capacity, or another factor drove the difference.
Product development, production, and supply chains
Manufacturers in the same February 2014 survey saw particularly strong potential in parts with difficult economics or uncertain demand. Seventy percent believed 3D printing would be used for obsolete parts within the following three to five years, and 57% expected its use for aftermarket parts over that horizon. Both figures are forecasts recorded in the survey, not later outcome measurements. Introduction: 3D printing’s growth spurt
Supply chains were identified by 30% of respondents as 3D printing’s greatest potential source of disruption. This helps explain the interest in on-demand production: digital designs can be connected to parts that are obsolete, customized, or needed in smaller quantities. The survey did not quantify how much inventory or transportation would actually be eliminated.
High-volume production attracted a more mixed outlook. For adoption of 3D applications for high-volume production within three to five years, 33% of respondents rated it very likely, 17% rated it moderately likely, and 13% rated it likely. Because the response categories are reported separately, they should remain separate rather than being combined into an unsupported adoption rate. The time horizon was an expectation from February 2014.
An aerospace maintenance, repair, and overhaul model published by NIST provided scenario-based savings estimates. It estimated $3.4 billion in annual material and transportation savings if half of the market’s parts were 3D-printed, while savings could exceed $1 billion annually at 20% 3D-printing adoption. These are modeled scenarios for that market, not observed industry-wide savings. Introduction: 3D printing’s growth spurt
The same NIST report described an Oak Ridge example in which 3D-printed metal parts took days instead of months and cost a few thousand dollars instead of hundreds of thousands. This is a case example rather than a universal production benchmark; material, design, certification, machine, and post-processing requirements can vary by part.
Consumer equipment, materials, energy, and waste
Consumer access improved sharply in the historical price observations. The cited review placed a basic plastic printer below $150 in July 2019 and basic filament below $9 per pound. Earlier milestones were higher: MakerBot’s 2009 consumer printer was priced at $750, and bare-bones printers cost $500–$600 during the 2010–2015 expansion period. The sequence shows falling entry prices across the cited dates, but it does not measure total ownership cost, reliability, labor, software, maintenance, or post-processing. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
The Department of Energy described additive manufacturing as reducing energy use by 25% versus traditional manufacturing in the cited estimate. It also described potential waste and materials-cost reductions of up to 90% versus traditional manufacturing. The Department’s page was published in 2017 and cited an earlier estimate, so these percentages should be treated as cited estimates rather than universal results for every design or process. What is Additive Manufacturing?
The potential benefit is most relevant when a design uses material efficiently or avoids tooling and transport associated with conventional production. However, the supplied figures do not provide a common test boundary for energy, waste, or material cost. They therefore support an upper-level benchmark, not a claim that every printed component achieves those reductions.
Forecasts and manufacturing share
Despite rapid historical growth, 3D printing remained a small share of manufacturing in the cited estimates. The Congressional Research Service reported that 3D printing represented less than 1% of worldwide manufacturing revenues in 2018-era estimates. One cited long-term forecast estimated that it could eventually account for 5%–10% of total global manufacturing revenues. The latter is a forecast range reported in 2019, not a measured share. 3D Printing: Overview, Impacts, and the Federal Role
The following forecasts come from a NIST-published supply-chain model. Its model estimated that additive-manufactured products represented less than 1% of all U.S. manufactured products at the time of its 2016 publication. It forecast reaching 50% of its assumed relevant-market potential between 2031 and 2038, and 100% between 2058 and 2065. “Relevant-market potential” is the model’s defined market, not all manufacturing output. Costs, Benefits, and Adoption of Additive Manufacturing: A Supply Chain Perspective
| Forecast or estimate | Period attached to the figure | Status or scope |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 1% of worldwide manufacturing revenue | 2018-era estimate | Historical estimate reported in 2019 |
| 5%–10% of global manufacturing revenue | Long term | Cited forecast range |
| $50 billion additive-manufacturing industry | 2029–2031 | NIST model forecast published in 2016 |
| $100 billion additive-manufacturing industry | 2031–2044 | NIST model forecast published in 2016 |
| 50% of assumed relevant-market potential | 2031–2038 | NIST model forecast published in 2016 |
| 100% of assumed relevant-market potential | 2058–2065 | NIST model forecast published in 2016 |
The NIST model also forecast a $50 billion additive-manufacturing industry between 2029 and 2031 and a $100 billion industry between 2031 and 2044. The wide target windows reflect model uncertainty and should not be interpreted as scheduled milestones.
Finally, a 2017 Department of Energy page reported an expectation of more than 31% annual industry growth through 2020 and an expected 3D-printing industry revenue level above $21 billion around 2020. Those are historical forecasts published before the target period; they should be retained as forecasts from that source, not treated as independently verified outcomes. What is Additive Manufacturing?