DMLS vs. EBM: A Detailed Comparison of Additive Manufacturing Technologies

AttributeDMLSEBM

Attribute

Number of beams

DMLS

EBM

1 – Very quick beam positioning

Attribute

Beam power

DMLS

400 W

EBM

4500 W

Attribute

Requires vacuum build volume

DMLS

EBM

Yes

Attribute

Layer height

DMLS

30 to 40 microns

EBM

70 microns

Attribute

Has isotropic material properties

DMLS

Yes

EBM

Yes

Attribute

Parts need to be cooled after printing

DMLS

Yes

EBM

Yes – often overnight

Attribute

Parts need support structures

DMLS

Yes

EBM

Yes

Attribute

Largest print volume

DMLS

400 x 400 x 400 mm

EBM

350 OD x 430 H (cylinder)

Table: DMLS vs. EBM Comparison

DMLS vs. EBM: Technology Comparison

Both DMLS and EBM are powder bed fusion technologies that use an energy source to melt a metal powder layer by layer to produce a final part. However, EBM makes use of an electron beam as the heat source, whereas DMLS makes use of a fiber laser beam.

DMLS vs. EBM: Material Comparison

DMLS is able to use many more materials than EBM. While DMLS supports metals such as aluminum, stainless steels, titanium, and superalloys, EBM is primarily limited to titanium alloys, cobalt-chrome, and nickel-based superalloys. Although pure copper is possible with EBM, it remains challenging due to its thermal and reflective properties.

DMLS vs. EBM: Product Applications Comparison

DMLS is heavily used in the medical industry for dental devices or for implants like hip joints. EBM is used in aerospace, medical, military, and R&D environments to produce advanced components.

DMLS vs. EBM: Print Volume Comparison

Print volume size is comparable with these two technologies. The DMLS build volume must be filled with an inert gas like argon, whereas an EBM machine must create a vacuum in which to print.

DMLS vs. EBM: Surface Finish Comparison

DMLS has a better surface finish than EBM. This is because the electron beam is wider than the DMLS beam, and this creates a more visible surface roughness on EBM parts. Additionally, EBM powders tend to be of a larger particle size, resulting in a coarser finish. Layer heights on EBM machines also tend to be larger than on DMLS systems, and this also contributes to a rougher finish in the form of a greater stepping effect.

DMLS vs. EBM: Cost Comparison

EBM is significantly more complex when compared to DMLS. This is because EBM generates a stream of electrons and maintains a vacuum build chamber. However, pricing is comparable between the two. An entry-level DMLS machine costs anywhere from around $350,000, whereas an entry-level EBM machine can cost upwards of $250,000.

It must be noted that metal powders also add to the cost as they can cost upwards of $300 per kg, and even more for EBM powders such as titanium or Inconel.

Summary

This article summarized the differences between DMLS and EBM 3D printing technologies.

To learn more about DMLS vs. EBM and to help select the perfect technology for your products, contact a Xometry representative.

Xometry offers a full range of 3D printing services for your project needs. Visit our Instant Quote Engine to get a free, no-obligation quote in minutes.

Disclaimer

The content appearing on this webpage is for informational purposes only. Xometry makes no representation or warranty of any kind, be it expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or validity of the information. Any performance parameters, geometric tolerances, specific design features, quality and types of materials, or processes should not be inferred to represent what will be delivered by third-party suppliers or manufacturers through Xometry’s network. Buyers seeking quotes for parts are responsible for defining the specific requirements for those parts. Please refer to our terms and conditions for more information.

Dean McClements

Dean McClements is a B.Eng Honors graduate in Mechanical Engineering with over two decades of experience in the manufacturing industry. His professional journey includes significant roles at leading companies such as Caterpillar, Autodesk, Collins Aerospace, and Hyster-Yale, where he developed a deep understanding of engineering processes and innovations.