Material guide

Find the right material for your part

About the strength numbers

The 1–5 ratings below are comparison tools, not universal engineering values. Actual tensile/impact strength changes with the exact manufacturer and grade, print orientation, wall count, infill, moisture, machine settings and post-processing. Exact MPa values should come from the technical data sheet for the material actually quoted for your project.

Availability

This is a capability/material-selection library—not a promise that every material is stocked today. Specialty, industrial and regulated materials require project review and compatible equipment/processes.

How to read the guide

What the ratings mean

1 / 5 Low relative performance

2 / 5 Below average / application-specific

3 / 5 Moderate / general purpose

4 / 5 High

5 / 5 Very high within this material library

Need engineering numbers?

For a quoted material, Forge Fabrication can identify the exact manufacturer/grade and use its technical data sheet for properties such as tensile strength (MPa), flexural strength/modulus, impact strength, elongation at break and heat-deflection temperature. That is more accurate than assigning one MPa value to an entire material family.

Material finder

Search. Filter. Compare.

Start with a process, then search by material name or filter by material family.

FDM / FFF

3D Printing Filaments

Thermoplastic materials melted and deposited layer-by-layer. Options range from easy-printing PLA to flexible elastomers, reinforced composites and industrial high-temperature polymers.

General

PLA

Project review

Best for: Prototypes, fixtures, models, indoor low-stress parts

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Easy to print and finish; low cost; excellent detail.

Things to consider

Low heat resistance and moderate brittleness; avoid hot cars or sustained high loads.

Best bonding methods

CA (super glue) for quick joints; 2-part epoxy for stronger/gap-filling joints. Sand and degrease first.

Bonding compatibility

Good: PLA, wood, many metals with epoxy. Difficult: PP, PE/HDPE, POM/acetal, PTFE without specialty primer/adhesive.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

Tough PLA

Project review

Best for: Functional prototypes needing more impact resistance than standard PLA

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

PLA-like printability with improved toughness on many formulations.

Things to consider

Properties vary by brand; still generally limited by PLA-family heat resistance.

Best bonding methods

CA, 2-part epoxy, or compatible acrylic plastic adhesive.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to PLA; specialty systems required for low-surface-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

High-Speed PLA

Project review

Best for: Rapid prototypes and high-throughput parts

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Optimized flow for faster printing while retaining PLA convenience.

Things to consider

Actual strength depends strongly on formulation and print speed/layer bonding.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy; abrade mating faces for structural joints.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to PLA.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Carbon Fiber PLA

Project review

Best for: Stiff prototypes, jigs, fixtures, technical-looking parts

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Higher stiffness and dimensional stability than typical PLA.

Things to consider

Abrasive; often less ductile; carbon fiber does not automatically mean tougher.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy preferred; CA for small clean joints. Roughen first.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals/wood with epoxy; difficult to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

Silk PLA

Project review

Best for: Decorative parts and presentation models

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Glossy finish can hide layer lines and create premium-looking parts.

Things to consider

Usually selected for appearance, not structural performance.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy after sanding glossy surfaces.

Bonding compatibility

Good to PLA/wood; variable to metals; poor to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

Wood PLA

Project review

Best for: Wood-look props, models, decorative housings

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Sandable and some grades can be stained; distinctive texture.

Things to consider

Filled material; may clog small nozzles; moisture-sensitive; formulation varies.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy or CA are predictable; wood glue may work on exposed wood-rich surfaces.

Bonding compatibility

Good to wood and itself after sanding; difficult to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

Matte PLA

Project review

Best for: Architectural models, consumer enclosures, low-glare presentation parts

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent matte appearance with easy PLA processing.

Things to consider

Additives can reduce toughness/layer adhesion versus standard PLA.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy; sand mating faces.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to PLA.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

Metal-Filled PLA

Project review

Best for: Weighted props, decorative metal-look parts, polishable models

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Metallic appearance and added mass; some grades can be polished.

Things to consider

Abrasive and often brittle; not equivalent to solid metal mechanically/electrically.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy preferred; CA for small joints.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself and many rigid substrates with epoxy.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

PETG

Project review

Best for: Functional parts, brackets, housings, moisture-resistant components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Good balance of toughness, moisture resistance, cost and printability.

Things to consider

Can string and creep under sustained load; bonding can be less predictable than PLA.

Best bonding methods

2-part epoxy or plastic-specific acrylic; CA can work with good prep.

Bonding compatibility

Good to metals/wood with epoxy; difficult to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Carbon Fiber PETG

Project review

Best for: Stiff functional parts and moisture-resistant fixtures

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Improves stiffness and dimensional stability while retaining PETG-family benefits.

Things to consider

Abrasive; may reduce ductility; properties vary by formulation.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy preferred; roughen and clean.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; difficult to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

PCTG

Project review

Best for: Tough functional parts and impact-resistant housings

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Often offers greater impact resistance than common PETG while retaining polyester benefits.

Things to consider

Less universally available; print and bond behavior is grade-specific.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy or plastic-compatible acrylic; test CA on exact grade.

Bonding compatibility

Generally bondable to similar polyesters/metals; low-energy plastics remain difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

CPE

Project review

Best for: Durable copolyester housings and mechanical prototypes

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Strong all-around engineering polyester family.

Things to consider

Brand-dependent; may require higher temperatures and dry filament.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy or acrylic plastic adhesive; abrasion improves results.

Bonding compatibility

Generally bonds to rigid plastics/metals; poor to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

ABS

Project review

Best for: Impact-resistant housings, functional parts, machinable components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Good toughness; easy to sand/machine; excellent same-material solvent welding.

Things to consider

Warping; enclosure recommended; fumes/odors require ventilation; weaker UV resistance than ASA.

Best bonding methods

ABS solvent cement for ABS-to-ABS; CA or epoxy for mixed materials.

Bonding compatibility

Excellent ABS-to-ABS; epoxy can join metal/wood; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

ASA

Project review

Best for: Outdoor parts, UV-exposed housings, weather-resistant components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Strong UV/weather resistance with ABS-like functionality.

Things to consider

Warping and fumes; enclosure/ventilation recommended.

Best bonding methods

ASA/ABS-compatible solvent welding; epoxy or CA for mixed materials.

Bonding compatibility

Strong same-family bonds; epoxy to metals/wood; poor to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Support / General

HIPS

Project review

Best for: ABS support material, lightweight models and prototypes

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Can serve as dissolvable support in limonene workflows; easy finishing.

Things to consider

Lower structural performance than many engineering plastics.

Best bonding methods

Styrenic plastic cement/compatible solvent; CA or epoxy.

Bonding compatibility

Good to styrenic plastics; epoxy for mixed substrates.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Polycarbonate (PC)

Project review

Best for: Strong, heat-resistant housings, fixtures and functional parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

High strength and heat resistance with useful impact performance.

Things to consider

High print temperatures; enclosure and drying often required; can warp.

Best bonding methods

2-part epoxy or specialty PC adhesive; solvent systems require care due to stress cracking.

Bonding compatibility

Good to PC/ABS/metals with appropriate systems; difficult to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Carbon Fiber Polycarbonate

Project review

Best for: Very stiff, heat-resistant fixtures and engineering components

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Combines PC heat capability with high stiffness and dimensional stability.

Things to consider

Abrasive; demanding temperatures; dry storage critical; may reduce ductility.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy; abrade and clean.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; difficult to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

PC-PBT

Project review

Best for: Heat/chemical-resistant engineering parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Combines PC toughness with PBT chemical/dimensional characteristics in specialty blends.

Things to consider

Requires controlled high-temperature printing/drying; exact properties are formulation-specific.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy or manufacturer-qualified acrylic/urethane adhesive.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to metals/compatible engineering plastics; test critical joints.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic / Engineering

PMMA

Project review

Best for: Clear/translucent display parts and light-guiding prototypes

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Good optical potential and stiffness.

Things to consider

More brittle than PC; solvents can cause crazing/stress cracking.

Best bonding methods

Acrylic solvent cement for PMMA-to-PMMA; clear epoxy for mixed materials.

Bonding compatibility

Excellent PMMA-to-PMMA with proper cement; epoxy to metals; poor to PP/PE/POM.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

PVB

Project review

Best for: Smoothable display models and decorative parts

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Compatible grades can be alcohol-smoothed for very clean surfaces.

Things to consider

Moisture sensitive and not generally a high-temperature structural material.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy; compatible solvent welding may be possible.

Bonding compatibility

Reasonable to itself/porous substrates; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

TPU

Project review

Best for: Gaskets, bumpers, grips and protective components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent toughness and flexibility; available in multiple Shore hardnesses.

Things to consider

Flexible filament requires tuned feed path/speed; dimensional precision can be harder.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane adhesive, contact adhesive, or elastomer-compatible CA.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to fabrics/some rigid plastics/metals; silicone, PP, PE and PTFE are difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

Semi-Flexible TPU

Project review

Best for: Guards, hinges, dampers and wear parts needing support plus flex

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Tough with more shape retention than very soft TPU.

Things to consider

Hardness and rebound vary by formulation; bonding remains application-specific.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane adhesive or elastomer-compatible CA.

Bonding compatibility

Good to TPU/some textiles/metals; low-energy plastics and silicone difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

Soft TPU

Project review

Best for: Soft seals, bumpers, grips and flexible covers

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Very compliant and impact tolerant.

Things to consider

Can require slow printing and careful supports; dimensional control is challenging.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane/contact adhesive; specialty elastomer CA with primer.

Bonding compatibility

Good to compatible elastomers/fabrics; difficult to PP/PE/silicone/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

TPE

Project review

Best for: Very soft grips, seals and vibration isolation

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Broad elastomer family with excellent flexibility.

Things to consider

Chemistry and Shore hardness vary widely; many grades are difficult to bond.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane/contact adhesive or manufacturer-specific elastomer adhesive.

Bonding compatibility

Often needs primer; silicone/TPE cross-bonding can be difficult.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

SEBS

Project review

Best for: Weather-resistant soft parts, grips and seals

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Good elastomeric behavior and weathering potential on suitable grades.

Things to consider

Low surface energy makes ordinary adhesive bonding difficult.

Best bonding methods

Specialty elastomer/low-surface-energy adhesive with primer; mechanical interlocks are valuable.

Bonding compatibility

Ordinary CA/epoxy often poor; designed interlocks/mechanical fastening may be better.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Nylon PA6

Project review

Best for: Gears, brackets, hinges and wear-resistant functional parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

High toughness and wear resistance.

Things to consider

Highly moisture absorbing; drying is critical; warping and conditioning affect dimensions/properties.

Best bonding methods

2-part epoxy or specialty nylon adhesive; primer/surface treatment can improve bonds.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to metals/nylon with prep; ordinary CA can be unreliable.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Nylon PA12

Project review

Best for: Clips, housings and tough functional components

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Tough nylon with generally lower moisture uptake and better dimensional stability than PA6.

Things to consider

Still hygroscopic; drying/enclosure may be needed; higher cost.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy or specialty polyamide adhesive; abrasion/primer helps.

Bonding compatibility

Good potential to metals/nylon with prep; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Glass-Filled Nylon

Project review

Best for: Stiff engineering brackets, fixtures and structural prototypes

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

High stiffness and dimensional stability with nylon toughness base.

Things to consider

Very abrasive; drying critical; reduced ductility; high hardware requirements.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy; roughen and clean.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; poor to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Carbon Fiber Nylon

Project review

Best for: Jigs, fixtures, brackets and strong mechanical parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent strength-to-weight, stiffness and dimensional stability on suitable grades.

Things to consider

Abrasive; moisture sensitive; high print requirements; lower elongation than unfilled nylon.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy; abrade and clean thoroughly.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; difficult to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PPA

Project review

Best for: High-temperature, high-stiffness engineering parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent thermal/mechanical potential for demanding service.

Things to consider

Very demanding drying/printing; expensive; formulation-specific.

Best bonding methods

Manufacturer-qualified structural epoxy/acrylic; surface treatment may be required.

Bonding compatibility

Qualified bonds to metals and engineering plastics should be tested.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

Carbon Fiber PPA

Project review

Best for: Very stiff high-temperature tooling, fixtures and functional parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Extremely high stiffness and strong thermal performance on qualified grades.

Things to consider

Abrasive, costly, moisture-sensitive; demanding chamber/nozzle temperatures.

Best bonding methods

High-performance structural epoxy with aggressive surface prep and testing.

Bonding compatibility

Good to metals/self with qualified epoxy; difficult to low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Polypropylene (PP)

Project review

Best for: Living hinges, chemical-resistant containers and fatigue-resistant lightweight parts

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent fatigue and chemical resistance; low density.

Things to consider

Very low surface energy makes printing-bed adhesion and gluing difficult; warping can be significant.

Best bonding methods

Specialty PP/PE adhesive with primer; plastic welding or mechanical joining often preferred.

Bonding compatibility

Poor with ordinary CA/epoxy; best with specialty low-surface-energy systems.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Glass-Filled Polypropylene

Project review

Best for: Stiffer chemical-resistant PP fixtures and lightweight components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Improves PP stiffness while retaining low density/chemical resistance.

Things to consider

Abrasive; bonding remains difficult; reduced flexibility.

Best bonding methods

Specialty low-surface-energy adhesive/primer or welding.

Bonding compatibility

Ordinary adhesives unreliable; specialty PP systems needed.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

POM / Acetal

Project review

Best for: Low-friction gears, sliders, bushings and wear components

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Very low friction, good wear and dimensional properties.

Things to consider

Extremely difficult to bond; warping; demanding printing; overheating must be avoided.

Best bonding methods

Prefer mechanical fastening, press fits or welding; specialty acetal adhesive/surface treatment if unavoidable.

Bonding compatibility

Very poor with common CA/epoxy; difficult to other low-energy plastics.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

HDPE

Project review

Best for: Chemical-resistant, tough and lightweight components

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent toughness and chemical resistance at low density.

Things to consider

High shrinkage/warping and very low surface energy; difficult to print and glue.

Best bonding methods

Specialty PE adhesive with primer; plastic welding/mechanical joining often preferred.

Bonding compatibility

Poor with ordinary adhesives; best to PE using specialty systems/welding.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PVDF

Project review

Best for: Chemical-resistant fluid-handling and harsh-environment parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent chemical/weather resistance on appropriate grades.

Things to consider

Specialty high-temperature printing; expensive; bonding difficult; certifications are grade-specific.

Best bonding methods

Specialty fluoropolymer adhesive/surface treatment; welding/mechanical joints often preferred.

Bonding compatibility

Very difficult with common adhesives; qualified process required.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Specialty

PCL

Project review

Best for: Low-temperature forming, educational and remoldable prototypes

Strength 1/5 ●○○○○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Very low melting/softening temperature enables hand-forming and niche workflows.

Things to consider

Not suitable for warm service environments.

Best bonding methods

CA or compatible hot-melt/urethane; low-temperature welding can work.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to porous materials; test application-specific compatibility.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Support

PVA

Project review

Best for: Water-soluble support structures for compatible multi-material prints

Strength 1/5 ●○○○○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent sacrificial support for complex geometry.

Things to consider

Very moisture sensitive and generally not an end-use structural material.

Best bonding methods

Normally not bonded as an end-use material.

Bonding compatibility

Designed to dissolve; use as support rather than permanent component.

Print difficulty: Support • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PEKK

Project review

Best for: High-temperature aerospace/industrial tooling and advanced components

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Exceptional thermal/chemical/mechanical capability on qualified grades.

Things to consider

Requires industrial high-temperature equipment, heated chamber, drying and process control; expensive.

Best bonding methods

PEKK-qualified high-temperature structural adhesive or welding; surface treatment often required.

Bonding compatibility

Critical joints require engineering qualification.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PEEK

Project review

Best for: Extreme-temperature, chemical-resistant advanced engineering parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

One of the highest-performance printable thermoplastics when properly processed.

Things to consider

Extremely demanding temperatures/chamber; costly; annealing and process qualification often required.

Best bonding methods

PEEK-qualified structural adhesive after surface treatment, thermal welding, or mechanical fastening.

Bonding compatibility

Difficult to bond reliably without treatment; validate critical joints.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PEI 9085

Project review

Best for: High-temperature transportation/aerospace components under qualified workflows

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

High thermal performance and established specialty-industry use.

Things to consider

Industrial high-temperature equipment and stringent process control; certifications are process-specific.

Best bonding methods

PEI-compatible structural epoxy/acrylic or welding after appropriate prep.

Bonding compatibility

Qualified systems required for structural/certified use.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PSU

Project review

Best for: High-temperature, chemically resistant engineering components

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Strong thermal and chemical performance.

Things to consider

High processing temperature, moisture control and specialty equipment.

Best bonding methods

High-performance epoxy/acrylic rated for PSU; surface prep required.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to metals/compatible engineering plastics with qualified adhesive.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

PPS

Project review

Best for: High-temperature, chemical-resistant industrial parts

Strength 5/5 ●●●●●

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent dimensional stability and chemical/thermal performance.

Things to consider

Very high temperatures; many grades are filled/abrasive; demanding chamber/drying.

Best bonding methods

High-temperature structural epoxy or specialty PPS adhesive; surface treatment may be needed.

Bonding compatibility

Qualified bonding recommended; ordinary adhesives not assumed.

Print difficulty: Industrial • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Vat photopolymerization

Resin Printing Materials

Photopolymer materials optimized for detail, smooth surfaces and specialized mechanical behavior. Final properties depend strongly on washing and post-curing.

General

Standard Resin

Project review

Best for: Visual prototypes, models and detailed presentation parts

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

High detail and smooth surfaces at relatively low cost.

Things to consider

Often brittle compared with engineering resins; heat/UV behavior varies.

Best bonding methods

CA for small joints; 2-part epoxy for stronger/gap-filling joints after full wash/cure.

Bonding compatibility

Usually good to cured resin, wood and metals; difficult to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

High-Detail / Model Resin

Project review

Best for: Miniatures, architectural/dental models and fine-feature prototypes

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent feature resolution and cosmetic surface quality.

Things to consider

Optimized for detail rather than impact/heat resistance.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy after full cure; lightly sand glossy mating faces.

Bonding compatibility

Good to similar cured resin/porous substrates; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

Draft / High-Speed Resin

Project review

Best for: Rapid fit checks, large prototypes and high-throughput models

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Faster production for early-stage iteration.

Things to consider

May trade surface quality or mechanical performance for speed depending on formulation.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy after washing/post-curing.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to standard cured resin.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

ABS-Like Resin

Project review

Best for: Functional prototypes, housings, clips and snap features

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Better toughness than many standard resins; useful all-around functional class.

Things to consider

“ABS-like” is not actual ABS and is not standardized across brands.

Best bonding methods

CA for small joints; toughened epoxy/acrylic for structural bonds.

Bonding compatibility

Good to cured resin/metals; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Tough Resin

Project review

Best for: Impact-resistant fixtures, enclosures and functional prototypes

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Designed for higher impact/fracture resistance than standard resin.

Things to consider

May be softer/lower-modulus than rigid resin; final properties depend heavily on post-cure.

Best bonding methods

Toughened epoxy/acrylic; CA for small joints.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; difficult to PP/PE/POM/PTFE.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Durable Resin

Project review

Best for: Squeezable parts, low-friction assemblies and impact-tolerant fixtures

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Pliable, impact-resistant and low-friction behavior on suitable formulations.

Things to consider

Lower stiffness; may creep under sustained load.

Best bonding methods

Flexible/toughened epoxy or acrylic; CA for noncritical joints.

Bonding compatibility

Good to cured resin/some metals; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Nylon-Like Resin

Project review

Best for: Tough clips, housings and impact-resistant functional prototypes

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Targets nylon-like toughness without FDM layer texture.

Things to consider

Not chemically identical to PA nylon; properties vary by brand.

Best bonding methods

Toughened epoxy/acrylic; CA for small joints.

Bonding compatibility

Generally good to cured photopolymer/metals; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

PP-Like Resin

Project review

Best for: Flexible clips, snap fits and compliant mechanisms

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Targets PP-like flexibility/fatigue behavior with resin detail.

Things to consider

Usually not actual polypropylene; fatigue/chemical performance must come from exact TDS.

Best bonding methods

Toughened epoxy/acrylic; test exact formulation.

Bonding compatibility

Do not assume real PP bonding behavior; test.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Engineering

Rigid / High-Modulus Resin

Project review

Best for: Stiff fixtures, tooling and dimensionally stable thin-wall parts

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Very high stiffness and low deflection.

Things to consider

Higher stiffness can mean lower impact tolerance/brittle failure.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy or acrylic; CA for precise small joints.

Bonding compatibility

Good to metals/cured resin; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Composite

Glass-Filled Resin

Project review

Best for: Very stiff tooling, fixtures and dimensionally stable parts

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Reinforcement increases stiffness and thermal/dimensional stability.

Things to consider

Can be brittle; filler handling/mixing requirements may apply; higher cost.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy; abrade/clean mating surfaces.

Bonding compatibility

Good to itself/metals with epoxy; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Specialty

Ceramic-Filled Resin

Project review

Best for: Ceramic-like prototypes or specialized debind/sinter workflows

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Can provide high stiffness and specialized surface/thermal properties.

Things to consider

Some systems require debinding/sintering and shrink substantially; as-printed composite differs from true ceramic.

Best bonding methods

Epoxy for as-printed composites; sintered ceramic requires ceramic-specific joining.

Bonding compatibility

Depends on whether final part remains polymer composite or is sintered.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

Flexible Resin

Project review

Best for: Seals, grips, soft covers and compliant prototypes

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Flexible, tear-resistant behavior with high detail.

Things to consider

Hardness, tear strength and rebound vary; supports/dimensions can be challenging.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane adhesive or elastomer-compatible CA/acrylic.

Bonding compatibility

Can bond to fabrics/metals; silicone and low-energy plastics are difficult.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Flexible

Elastic / Soft Resin

Project review

Best for: Very soft seals, cushioning and stretchable prototypes

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 1/5 ●○○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

High compliance and stretch for rubber-like behavior.

Things to consider

Thin features may tear; aging/tackiness varies; support marks can be visible.

Best bonding methods

Flexible polyurethane/contact adhesive or elastomer-specific CA.

Bonding compatibility

Good to compatible elastomers; silicone/PP/PE/PTFE difficult.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

High Performance

High-Temperature Resin

Project review

Best for: Molds, inserts, heat-resistant fixtures and hot-air/fluid prototypes

Strength 4/5 ●●●●○

Stiffness 5/5 ●●●●●

Heat 5/5 ●●●●●

View material details

Why use it?

Excellent heat-deflection capability with high detail.

Things to consider

Often stiff/brittle; heat performance depends on exact post-cure schedule.

Best bonding methods

High-temperature epoxy or manufacturer-qualified adhesive.

Bonding compatibility

Good to metals/cured resin with high-temp epoxy; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic

Clear Resin

Project review

Best for: Transparent covers, fluid visualization and light-guiding prototypes

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Can achieve transparent/translucent appearance with finishing.

Things to consider

As-printed surfaces are not automatically optically clear; yellowing and finishing vary.

Best bonding methods

Clear CA or optical/clear epoxy; avoid systems that craze/cloud the surface.

Bonding compatibility

Good to clear resin/glass/some metals; test acrylic/PC for stress cracking.

Print difficulty: Moderate • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Aesthetic / Specialty

Optical / High-Clarity Resin

Project review

Best for: Higher-clarity covers, optical prototypes and light-guiding parts

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Higher transparency potential than general clear resin.

Things to consider

True optical performance requires controlled finishing/cure and measured data.

Best bonding methods

Optical-grade UV adhesive or clear epoxy compatible with exact resin.

Bonding compatibility

Potentially good to glass/clear polymers; compatibility testing required.

Print difficulty: Advanced • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Specialty

ESD-Safe Resin

Project review

Best for: Electronics fixtures, assembly aids and static-dissipative enclosures

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Provides controlled static-dissipative behavior on qualified formulations.

Things to consider

ESD is a resistance range; environment, geometry and process affect performance.

Best bonding methods

Structural epoxy/acrylic; use ESD-compatible adhesive if electrical path matters.

Bonding compatibility

Mechanical bonding is normal, but ordinary adhesive can interrupt ESD path.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Specialty

Flame-Retardant Resin

Project review

Best for: Electrical, transportation and industrial parts requiring documented flammability performance

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 4/5 ●●●●○

View material details

Why use it?

Available formulations can meet specific flammability standards.

Things to consider

Rating is certification- and process-specific; adhesive/geometry may invalidate assembly performance.

Best bonding methods

Manufacturer-qualified flame-retardant adhesive when assembly rating matters.

Bonding compatibility

Mechanical bonding possible, but finished assembly requires its own qualification.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Casting

Castable Resin

Project review

Best for: Jewelry, dental casting patterns and investment-casting masters

Strength 1/5 ●○○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Designed for clean burnout and fine casting detail.

Things to consider

Not intended for durable end-use parts; burnout schedule is critical.

Best bonding methods

Usually not structurally bonded; compatible CA may assemble patterns.

Bonding compatibility

Temporary pattern bonding only; verify burnout residue.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Casting

Wax / Wax-Like Castable Resin

Project review

Best for: High-detail investment casting patterns

Strength 1/5 ●○○○○

Stiffness 2/5 ●●○○○

Heat 1/5 ●○○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Low-residue burnout behavior for casting workflows.

Things to consider

Can be fragile/soft; handling and burnout requirements vary.

Best bonding methods

Pattern assembly adhesive or wax-compatible joining method; minimize adhesive.

Bonding compatibility

Temporary casting-pattern use only.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

Water-Washable Resin

Project review

Best for: General models where water-based cleanup is preferred

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

Simplifies cleanup workflow compared with IPA-based washing.

Things to consider

Water-washable does not mean drain-safe; contaminated wash water requires proper disposal.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy after thorough wash, dry and post-cure.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to standard cured resin; low-energy plastics difficult.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

General

Plant-Based / Bio-Content Resin

Project review

Best for: General prints where bio-derived content is a purchasing preference

Strength 2/5 ●●○○○

Stiffness 3/5 ●●●○○

Heat 2/5 ●●○○○

View material details

Why use it?

May incorporate renewable/bio-derived feedstocks.

Things to consider

Does not automatically mean biodegradable, compostable, food-safe or safe before cure.

Best bonding methods

CA or epoxy after full cure.

Bonding compatibility

Similar to standard resin depending on formulation.

Print difficulty: Easy • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Dental

Dental Model Resin

Project review

Best for: High-accuracy dental/orthodontic models and lab workflows

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

High detail and dimensional accuracy for model-making.

Things to consider

Not automatically approved for intraoral contact; model and biocompatible resins are separate.

Best bonding methods

CA/epoxy for nonclinical model assembly if manufacturer permits.

Bonding compatibility

Use only within validated workflow.

Print difficulty: Specialty • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Regulated

Surgical Guide / Biocompatible Resin

Project review

Best for: Certified surgical guides or defined skin/mucosal-contact applications when exact workflow permits

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Specific grades can carry documented biocompatibility for defined uses.

Things to consider

Certification depends on resin, printer, wash, cure, sterilization and jurisdiction.

Best bonding methods

Only manufacturer-approved bonding/assembly methods within validated workflow.

Bonding compatibility

Do not mix with unqualified materials if biocompatibility must be maintained.

Print difficulty: Regulated • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.

Regulated

Medical / Long-Term Biocompatible Resin

Project review

Best for: Specialized medical-device applications with defined contact type/duration

Strength 3/5 ●●●○○

Stiffness 4/5 ●●●●○

Heat 3/5 ●●●○○

View material details

Why use it?

Enables regulated workflows when exact material and process are qualified.

Things to consider

High documentation/process burden; material choice alone does not make a printed design a medical device.

Best bonding methods

Use only validated medical-device assembly processes.

Bonding compatibility

Compatibility is certification- and device-specific.

Print difficulty: Regulated • Strength rating: qualitative, not a universal MPa value.