Billion Dollar Bambu and a New Worldview? – 3DPrint.com

Imagine for a moment that Bambu Lab sells 2.7 million 3D printers this year. If their average ticket price is $350 and they generate $75 million in filament sales, their revenue would exceed a billion dollars. Imagine, that this isn’t some PowerPoint unicorn valuation—it’s actual revenue.

Now, consider that Creality sells 3.2 million systems at an average price of $200 per unit. That would bring their revenue to $640 million. This means both companies would be larger than Stratasys ($627 million) and 3D Systems ($488 million).

For perspective, 3D Systems was founded 38 years ago in 1986, and Stratasys 35 years ago in 1989. Meanwhile, Creality was founded in 2014, and Bambu Lab in 2020.

I have very low confidence in the accuracy of my Bambu & Creality revenue estimate (40%). It’s based on just three data points, which is too weak a foundation for use in a report or any formal analysis. At the moment, I haven’t found additional data points to substantiate it further. So, let’s treat this as a thought experiment.

With that in mind, let’s assemble a speculative list of the largest revenue-generating 3D printing companies. This requires some estimation—such as carving out SLM’s revenues and aggregating those of Nano Dimension, Markforged, and Desktop Metal, for example.

Estimated Revenue Largest 3D Printing Firms 

1. Bambu Lab $1.1 Billion
2. Creality $640 million
3. Stratasys $627m
4. Xometry $525m
5. Protolabs $504m
6. 3D Systems $488m
7. Nikon SLM Solutions $400m
8. EOS $380m
9. NanoDimension (Markforged, DM) $314m
10. Materialise $297
11. BLT $167
12. Farsoon $80 million

Does that change how you see the 3D printing industry? Does that change perhaps who we should be watching and talking about? Additive manufacturing is not sclerotic or SPACed out—it is a dynamic, growing sector with some of the fastest-growing companies in the world. And these firms aren’t just pushing hype; they’re selling real products for real money.

The industry’s challenges don’t stem from an industry-wide slowdown but rather from the fact that desktop 3D printers are outselling larger, more industrial systems—just as PCs outsold mainframes. So, let’s focus on the assumption that these numbers are, more or less, accurate.

Desktop Firms Will Move Up But Focus More on Growing the Market

The initial assumption might be that the major desktop 3D printing firms will naturally expand into larger, more industrial systems. And to some extent, they will. Thousands of businesses are already using Bambu and Creality machines for enterprise applications, farming and manufacturing. Logically, these companies will develop machines with larger build volumes, better specifications, and higher price points.

However, capturing the enterprise 3D printing market alone won’t be enough. The revenue growth of traditional enterprise 3D printing firms hasn’t been compelling enough to make it their sole focus. While they will move upmarket, doubling their current growth will require more than just displacing established industrial players. Your demise is therefore an externality on their execution of their ambition, not a goal in and of itself. Any slight change in strategy by you can just delay the inevitable, you need to fundamentally change part cost to survive.

Instead of gunning for you, the main focus of their path forward will be in expanding the overall 3D printing market. Innovations such as easier 3D scanning via smartphones, text-to-STL generation, seamless file sharing, intuitive CAD tools, and more user-friendly apps will likely take priority. They will seek to grow the ecosystem—whether by simplifying workflows, improving system usability, or exploring new marketing and distribution strategies.

Rather than focusing all their energy on directly challenging the incumbents, these firms will aim to make the entire market significantly larger. Or instead of being the fastest scribe in the monastery they will focus on teaching more people to read.

Low Cost LPBF Is the Key to Growth

What we’re seeing, is that Chinese powder bed fusion companies have grown at an incredible pace. Their vertically integrated super-app approach, combined with a focus on affordable machines, has driven rapid expansion in the lower segment of the powder bed fusion market—growth that more established firms have failed to replicate.

We all know that CapEx is the biggest barrier to 3D printing’s wider adoption. We all know that if machine costs came down, the industry would scale much faster. And yet, the Chinese firms are actually doing it. They’re enabling more applications, more parts, and more users to adopt additive. By offering machines starting at $100,000, they are creating entirely new markets and accelerating growth.

I don’t want to hear any more of the “how can you make money from a $100K machine” argument—figure it out. I don’t care if it seems difficult. It’s a valuable problem, it probably will be hard to solve. I don’t care if you think IP was stolen. I don’t care if you assume the quality is lower. Just make it happen.

We know that One Click Metal and AlphaLaser have managed to produce European-made systems at around $120,000. We know that we, too, could build competitive machines and perhaps they would have extremely low margins. And those lower-margin, lower-cost machines could both curb the growth of Asian competitors and expand the overall market. Over time, customers will grow into larger, higher-end systems. We would also in doing so expand the market from 1000 manufacturing sites to 250,000.

Maybe—just maybe—the real problem is your cost structure, lack of ambition and the slower pace of your innovation.

Defense, Defense

Of course, in markets like New Space, defense, and other high-end applications, multilaser systems are selling like hotcakes. By manufacturing these systems in the U.S. and closely aligning with customer needs, companies can develop outstanding solutions. These sectors come with high barriers to entry and can foster incredibly long-term business relationships at comfortable margins. I’m not suggesting that companies abandon this space. But, I am suggesting that it would be silly to in the current geopolitical climate to bet everything on one industry and one customer.

We must also realize that Elon Musk is currently a powerful unchecked cost cutting czar in the US government. He also owns 42% of SpaceX (that stake is currently worth $147 billion) which has a license to all of Velo3D´s IP and can build those 3D printers by itself. Given that 3D printing is the main technology that all new space companies use for propulsion, the Velo IP could give SpaceX a considerable unique advantage. Investments by the US government in making other people´s LPBF machines better could erode that advantage. Cutting the purchasing & investment in 3D printing by the US government could see SpaceX extend its hold over launch by years. Mr. Musk therefore has billions of reasons to reduce 3D printing development by the US government. I´m not saying that he will, call it a thought experiment. I am saying, that any business plan that hinges on a single person acting against their own interests is a naive one and in fact is not a business, nor is it a plan. And it definitely isn´t a strategy.

Desktop & Low Cost LPBF

If we look at manufacturing more entry-level LPBF systems, it’s clear that this segment will create opportunities for growth—and allow competitors to move upmarket. Many Chinese players already offer larger systems and will continue expanding locally. By selling both low-end and high-end machines, they will eventually outgrow specialized firms. What’s more no one has reinvented LPBF, just made similar devices. How could a truly low cost powder bed alternative work? Can you invent one? Can you reimagine the technology? Could you use Photonic-Crystal Surface-Emitting Lasers (PCSELs) as a light source, or lower cost lasers? The right strategy, then, is to complement your existing business with lower-end systems and to reinvent if you can.

At the same time, low-cost desktop systems should be a viable path forward for other firms as well. I know—we’ve been here before, and it didn’t work last time. But considering the stability and performance of Bambu and other machines today, let’s fast forward two more machine generations of development and another five years.

We could still see a true desktop 3D printing revolution. And with, lower cost powder bed systems we can conquer manufacturing.

What if I got it Wrong?

What if Bambu isn’t as big as I said? Let’s imagine I’m way off—what if they only sold 500,000 systems and brought in around $175 million in revenue? Even then, they’re still going to annihilate the competition. It will just take longer. The story remains the same: adapt or die. Wake up.

Meanwhile, there’s another key point to consider—because as we all know, Bambu isn’t actually the largest revenue company in 3D printing. That title belongs to Invisalign, which pulled in $3.9 billion in revenue in 2023.

The real money is in applications. CapEx is a major barrier, high costs are slowing market growth, Chinese firms are moving fast, and applications are where the biggest opportunities lie. Its simple really, enable applications at lower costs or perish. None of this is new—but hopefully, with a fresh perspective, you can now see the Creality.

3D Printing Financials: Dissecting Nikon and SLM’s Earnings Post-Acquisition