2025 was a year of change for 3D printing, with much of the year’s activity coming from mergers, acquisitions, restructurings, and company exits. Together, these moves indicate a broader shift: 3D printing is no longer in its expansion phase. It is entering a period of consolidation, driven by fewer, stronger companies. This overview looks at how those changes reveal the current state of the additive manufacturing industry.

2025 Marked a Turning Point

For several years, the 3D printing industry saw high levels of investment and expansion. By 2025, market conditions had changed. Customers wanted proven production use cases, reliable materials and workflows, and a clear return on investment. Meanwhile, investors wanted fewer losses, clear paths to profitability, and specific market segments instead of all-purpose platforms. As a result, the industry began to “sort itself out.” Stronger assets were absorbed, some companies restructured, and smaller or less focused players found the market more challenging.

Who Was Acquired: Assets Over Ambition

In many cases, companies were not buying other businesses to get bigger faster. Instead, they were buying specific technology they did not want to build themselves, experienced teams with hard-to-find skills, or access to existing customers and contracts, often in regulated or industrial markets. The goal was not to scale a brand, but to keep the most useful parts and integrate them into an existing business. Looking at it in retrospect, it would seem that all these moves point to a more cautious market, with buyers focused on what delivers value now rather than what might pay off later.

Desktop Metal Acquired by Arc Impact

One of the major moves of the year was Arc Impact’s acquisition last September of Desktop Metal’s core assets, including Adaptive3D, EnvisionTEC, and other key parts of its technology portfolio.

This was not a typical exit story, though. Desktop Metal had previously been acquired by Nano Dimension, a transaction that was followed by legal disputes, an internal review, and a period of uncertainty before the company filed for Chapter 11 and its core assets were sold.

Arc Impact made it clear that the goal was not to scale every legacy product, but to focus on defense, energy, and other high-consequence applications. Some technologies moved forward. Others were not prioritized.

The deal followed a similar pattern to other acquisitions in 2025, where only specific parts of a business moved forward.

Desktop Metal headquarters in Burlington, MA. Image courtesy of 3DPrint.com.

Who Merged: Survival Through Combination

Mergers in 2025 focused on bringing different strengths together, rather than merging similar companies to grow quickly. Companies merged to cover gaps in their business, such as technology, materials, or market access, instead of trying to scale fast.

Some mergers brought established players together. For example, the industrial binder jet companies ExOne and voxeljet were combined under a single holding company. Materialise consolidated its i.materialise and Materialise OnSite service platforms into a single platform. There was also consolidation beyond hardware and services. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) acquired Women in 3D Printing.

Rudolf Franz, Whitney Haring-Smith, and Eric Bader. Image courtesy of ExOne Global Holdings.

Another example was K-TIG’s merger with Metal Powder Works, announced as K-TIG prepared for a planned listing on the Australian Stock Exchange. The deal combined K-TIG’s manufacturing and welding technology with Metal Powder Works’ metal powder production, creating a more complete and vertically integrated offering.

Interestingly, after the merger, many companies shifted how they described their business. Instead of pointing to “disruption,” the focus was on qualification, certification, and repeat customers.

Who Disappeared: Leaving the Market

In 2025, several startups and smaller vendors exited the 3D printing market. Some stopped updating their websites, went silent on social media, paused product announcements, or simply announced their closure. Aniwaa, which held one of the largest databases of 3D printers and resources, shut down in April. Castor Technologies, an Israeli software startup focused on AM decision tools, entered court-ordered liquidation in July after funding dried up. BCN3D filed for bankruptcy in June, marking a major setback for the desktop and professional printer segment, even as reports suggested a possible rescue deal.

Larger, established companies also stepped back. In September, Arburg announced it was exiting AM entirely to refocus on its core injection molding business, while continuing to support existing customers. TRUMPF sold its AM business to the DUBAG Group in July, with those assets later reorganized into a new company, ATLIX. Meanwhile, GenTech was reported to be ending all 3D printer manufacturing by the end of its 2025 fiscal year, and PrintMax exited the sector after selling off its remaining assets. In many cases, the technology worked. The problem was long sales cycles, high costs, and customers leaning toward larger, more established suppliers. In this tighter market, being interesting was no longer enough.

TRUMPF employee in front of TruPrint 2000 holding a square build plate. Image courtesy of TRUMPF.

Subsidiaries That Didn’t Last

In 2025, many companies stepped back from experimental subsidiaries launched in earlier years. Large companies had launched internal startups around areas like bioprinting, advanced materials, and production-scale platforms, often as bets on future markets. By 2025, many of those bets were re-evaluated. Some units were shut down, others went back to their parent companies, and a few were spun off.

A great example of this was Nano Dimension, which discontinued several smaller subsidiaries it had previously acquired. DeepCube and Formatec were sold, while Fabrica and Admatec were discontinued as the company narrowed its focus to core operations. It seems to Nano Dimension and other companies that if a business could not stand on its own, it was unlikely to survive a tighter market.

Several large chemical and materials companies that entered the space during earlier growth years later decided to shut down or exit their AM-focused divisions. Braskem’s Xtellar unit stopped producing 3D printing materials, while Kimya, part of the Armor Group, ceased filament production and closed its facility. Asahi Kasei Plastics North America also ended its filament business. In another case, BASF spun off its AM unit, Forward AM, into a separate company, which was then acquired by Stratasys and integrated into its materials business.

What All of This Says About the Industry

When we look at everything that happened in 2025, a few things stand out:

Hardware Alone Is Not Enough: Companies selling machines without strong software, materials, or service offerings struggled.
Focus Mattered More: Companies targeting specific industries did better than those trying to serve everyone.
Regulated Markets Gained Power: Defense, aerospace, energy, and medical applications pushed many of the most stable deals.
Capital Efficiency Mattered: High valuations without strong revenue no longer worked.
Fewer Logos, Bigger Players: We could say the industry didn’t really shrink; it just tightened around fewer, stronger players.

Ultrasim 3D Consulting. Image courtesy of BASF Forward AM.

By the end of 2025, the 3D printing industry looked smaller, but it was also more settled. There were fewer startups, fewer launches, and less noise overall. At the same time, priorities became clearer, and the focus shifted toward real manufacturing needs rather than broad experimentation.

The companies that remain are not moving fast just to move fast. They are building more cautiously, with a closer-knit focus on customers. If the last decade was about showing what 3D printing could become, 2025 was about defining where it actually fits today.

We use cookies

Who Merged, Who Was Acquired, and Who Disappeared in 3D Printing in 2025

TL;DR