Metal 3D Printing Guide: Processes, Materials & Costs

3D Printing Technology: LPBF, Binder Jetting, and DED Compared

Not all metal 3D printing processes produce the same results, and choosing the wrong one is the fastest way to overspend. Three additive manufacturing technologies dominate industrial metal printing today: Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), binder jetting, and Directed Energy Deposition (DED). Each uses a fundamentally different approach to produce metal parts, which directly shapes cost per part, surface finish, dimensional accuracy, and lead time.

LPBF remains the go-to process for high-precision components like aerospace brackets, turbine parts, and medical implants. Binder jetting is gaining traction for higher-volume production parts, while DED excels at large-format builds and repair applications.

1. LPBF (Selective Laser Melting/DMLS)

LPBF uses a high-power laser to selectively melt fine metal powder layer by layer, producing fully dense functional parts directly from the build platform. With a layer thickness of 20–50 µm, this process delivers the highest resolution and strongest mechanical properties of any metal 3D printing technology: dimensional accuracy of ±0.1 mm and as-built porosity of just 0.2–0.5 %. The trade-off is cost.

Slow build rates and mandatory support structures make LPBF the most expensive option per part. In industry, selective laser melting (SLM) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) are used interchangeably. MakerVerse’s metal 3D printing offering includes LPBF technology.

2. Binder Jetting for Metal Parts

Binder jetting follows a two-step workflow. First, a liquid binder is deposited onto layers of metal powder to form a “part”. Then, a sintering process in a high-temperature furnace burns away the binder and fuses the powder into a solid component. Because no melting occurs during printing, build speed is significantly faster than LPBF.

At higher volumes, this translates to the lowest cost per part of any metal additive manufacturing process. Sintering introduces ~15–20 % shrinkage, requiring careful tolerance planning, and mechanical properties generally fall below LPBF levels. Binder jetting is maturing for production parts in consumer electronics, dental, and machinery.

3. Directed Energy Deposition (DED)

DED feeds metal powder or wire into a focused energy source, such as a laser or electron beam, which melts the material as it is deposited. This process stands apart for two reasons: it can produce massive components (build volumes up to 5 m for wire DED), and it can add features to existing parts. Neither LPBF nor binder jetting can match those capabilities. Surface finish is the roughest of the three technologies, so CNC machining is almost always required as post-processing.

Typical industrial applications include turbine blade repair, large structural components, and hybrid manufacturing, where DED creates near-net shapes that are then finished to tight tolerances by machining.

What Really Drives Metal 3D Printing Costs

Materials account for roughly 40–60 % of total cost, machine time for 20–30 %, and labour plus post-processing for 15–25 %. But these ratios shift dramatically depending on alloy choice, part geometry, and required finishing steps.

Consider the powder alone: stainless steel runs approximately €50–100/kg, while titanium Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 718 command €300–500+/kg. That single variable can multiply your part cost by five. Then add post-processing, which industry data suggests accounts for roughly 40 % of total project cost. Heat treatment, support removal, CNC machining of functional surfaces, and quality assurance all stack up fast. Platforms with transparent fixed-price quotes, like MakerVerse’s instant quoting, help buyers avoid surprise costs after order placement by rolling every step into one binding number upfront.

Build Height, Orientation, and Support Structures

In metal powder bed fusion, every layer adds roughly the same processing time, regardless of how complex the cross section is. That means build height drives machine time linearly. A part that is 150 mm tall takes about twice as long to print as the same part at 75 mm.

Part orientation on the build plate determines how much support structure the printer needs to generate. Take a simple L-shaped bracket: oriented flat, it may need minimal supports. Flip it upright, and large overhanging surfaces require dense support structures, wasting powder and adding hours of removal labour. These geometric factors often matter more for total cost than part complexity alone. Factors to reduce costs:

• Minimise build height where possible to reduce machine time
• Orient parts to reduce overhangs below 45° (the self-supporting threshold)
• Consider splitting tall parts if post-assembly is feasible
• Factor in that support material is wasted powder plus removal labour

Post-Processing: The Hidden Cost Layer

No metal 3D-printed part is ready for use directly off the build plate. Every component requires at least stress relief and support removal. More demanding engineering applications add heat treatment, precision machining, and surface finishing to the chain. Each step adds cost and lead time, and skipping one can compromise the mechanical properties or dimensional accuracy of the final part.

Here is the typical post-processing sequence for LPBF metal parts:

1. Stress relief annealing – mandatory; performed while the part is still on the build plate to reduce internal stresses
2. Part removal – cutting or wire EDM to separate the printed part from the build platform
3. Support removal – manual or machined; often the most labour-intensive step
4. Heat treatment or HIP – eliminates internal porosity and improves mechanical properties for demanding applications
5. CNC machining – for critical surfaces, holes, and threads requiring tight tolerances
6. Surface finishing – bead blasting, polishing, or coating, depending on the application and required surface finish

Metal 3D Printing Materials: Alloys for Your Application

Material selection is both a performance decision and a cost decision. The alloy you choose can shift total part cost by 5–10×, making it the first variable engineers should evaluate before finalizing a design. A titanium bracket and an identical stainless-steel bracket printed on the same machine look the same in CAD but live in entirely different cost universes.

MakerVerse’s platform covers a wide range of metal powder options, from AlSi10Mg and stainless steels through Inconel, titanium, and more, with datasheets and DFM guidance available directly on the platform.

DfAM: How Smart Design Cuts Metal 3D Printing Costs

Redesigning your part for additive manufacturing can save 30 % or more. Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) is the single most effective cost lever engineers have when ordering metal 3D-printed parts. Three core principles make the biggest difference: 

1. Keeping overhangs at self-supporting angles of 45° or greater to minimise support structures
2. Respecting minimum wall thickness rules to prevent build failures
3. Orienting holes vertically to avoid supports inside cavities

Beyond these basics, topology optimisation removes non-load-bearing material, directly reducing metal powder consumption and build time. Part consolidation takes it further by combining multiple components into one printed part, eliminating assembly labour and simplifying your supply chain.

• Self-supporting angles: Design overhangs at 45° or greater to eliminate support structures and reduce wasted powder
• Topology optimisation: Remove non-load-bearing material to reduce powder use by 15–35 %
• Part consolidation: Combine multiple components into one printed part to eliminate assembly steps
• Minimum wall thickness: Respect process-specific minimums (typically 0.4–1.0 mm for LPBF) to avoid failed builds
• Hole orientation: Orient circular holes vertically where possible to avoid costly support inside cavities

MakerVerse’s DFM analysis catches these costly design issues at the quoting stage, before production begins. That early feedback prevents the rework cycles and reprints that quietly drive up total cost in traditional sourcing workflows.