3D Matter just released a new study on improved PLA and ABS filaments. The study shows the differences between PLA and ABS before assessing whether filaments that are marketed as “improved” are in fact better than the basic chemistries.
The focus is four brands that provide “improved” filaments: Polymaker, Push Plastic, FormFutura and Orbitech. 3D Matter shows that it is possible to improve on some basic characteristics of PLA and ABS, but that it sometimes come at the expense of other aspects of the filament. For example, a filament may have improved processability but it leads to reduced mechanical performance.
PolyMax from Polymaker and ABS pro from Formfutura show both great performance and visual quality. Premium PLA from Push Plastic, Smart ABS from Orbitech and ClearScent from Formfutura are very easy to print, but Premium PLA and Smart ABS show poor mechanical performance and in Smart ABS’s case, low visual quality. Finally, EasyFil from Formfutura is very similar to basic ABS filaments.
The study puts all the filaments on the same grading scale, but explains what differences are linked to chemistry, and what differences are linked to the supplier’s specificities. For example, the differences mechanical performance are summarized in the following graph:
Find 3D Matter’s full study for free on their website: www.my3dmatter.com
9 Likes
oh! That’s a cool report guys. Interesting insights @bramhallo
That’s really very interesting! A pity Colorfabb wasn’t included in the study but I’m sure you have your eyes on that one for the next edition. Did you see any variations is different colour ways?
Cheers!
AndyL
Pot8oSH3D
We have a study coming up on the influence of color on performance so we will keep you posted!
Colorfabb was included in the first study we did: it is a PLA/PHA blend and has therefore a lower tensile strength, but a higher elongation at break and probably a higher impact resistance (though we didn’t do the test on impact resistance).
1 Like
As I say, it’s all interesting info. Perhaps it would be useful to give the community a little information about 3DMatter. I’m sure your findings are unbiased but there’s not much info on your website to establish the credentials of the organisation. Or is it a company? Is it doing market research or developing the next generation of 3D printing materials? Where is it based? Is it part of a larger company? How many employees are there and what are their qualifications and experience? I hope you don’t think I’m being unduly aggressive but there’s a lot of unsubstantiated opinion ( aka BS ) in 3D printing right now and one needs to be sure of one’s sources.
Just one more comment: if you wish to establish your credibility, it’s best not to talk about yourself in the third person.
cheers,
AndyL
Pot8oSH3D
1 Like
Hi Andy, we are a small startup made of engineers (chemistry / material science master and PhD for the most part). We are testing existing materials to provide info to the users in an industry that is really lacking standards. We do not pretend to have all the answers but we are trying to build a robust testing procedure based on scientific evidence. We are also doing some formulation for new materials but we are still at the R&D stage for that.
Please keep up updated with your future projects as well 
It’s very important that someone investigates these things!
1 Like
That’s really very laudable, erm… ( Arthur? ), but I’m sure you haven’t set up 3DMatter out of a sense of altruism so I’m curious to know how you intend your start-up to make money. Is it a testing company, a formulation consultancy or a nascent filament supplier? Really think this information should be on your website.
cheers,
AndyL
Simona
10
That’s so useful! Thanks for sharing guys
