For teams working with large-scale 3D printing, the Formlabs Form 4L and Form 3L offer high-quality, reliable options for producing larger parts with detailed finishes. Both models bring high precision to industrial and commercial applications, but with different features that suit various needs. While the Form 3L is a solid choice for in-house, office-friendly production, the Form 4L takes large-format printing to a new level with even faster speeds and enhanced capabilities for intensive workflows.

Here’s a detailed look at how the Form 4L and Form 3L compare.

1. Build Volume and Applications

Form 3L

With a build volume of 33.5 × 20 × 30 cm (13.2 × 7.9 × 11.8 in), the Form 3L supports a range of larger prototypes and models, making it versatile enough for office or factory environments. Ideal for businesses looking to move large-scale prototyping in-house, the Form 3L is capable of printing life-sized models and complex parts that were previously outsourced.

Form 4L
With a build volume of 35.3 x 19.6 x 35.0 cm (13.9 × 77 × 138 in), the Form 4L offers a similar build volume but with enhancements in speed and material options that make it ideal for high-throughput production. Designed for faster turnarounds on large or intricate parts, it’s well-suited for users with greater volume needs or those who require extensive material compatibility.

Winner: Draw – Both models offer substantial build volumes, but the Form 4L adds performance advantages that may benefit high-demand environments.

2. Printing Technology

Form 3L
Utilizing Low Force Stereolithography (LFS), the Form 3L incorporates two Light Processing Units (LPUs) to ensure consistent detail across the entire build platform. This technology minimizes peel forces, resulting in smoother surfaces and reliable print success, even on complex parts.

Form 4L
The Form 4L employs Low Force Display (LFD) technology, which speeds up production by curing entire layers in one go. This layer-by-layer curing allows for faster prints without compromising accuracy, making it an efficient choice for production settings where time is essential.

Winner: Form 4L – The Form 4L’s LFD technology offers a speed advantage, especially for large-format prints.

3. Speed and Throughput

Form 3L
The Form 3L is optimized for high-quality prints, with a balanced speed suitable for most in-house prototyping needs. Draft Resin and other materials can be used to accelerate print times, though complex or large parts will take more time.

Form 4L
With its LFD engine, the Form 4L provides significantly faster print speeds. This capability makes it a better option for users needing rapid production cycles, especially in industries where large parts or quick turnarounds are critical.

Winner: Form 4L – The speed boost of the Form 4L enables faster production, making it ideal for businesses with high demands.

4. Material Compatibility

Form 3L
The Form 3L supports a wide selection of Formlabs resins, ranging from standard prototyping materials to engineering resins. Its dual-cartridge system allows for uninterrupted printing, particularly useful for long or multi-day prints.

Form 4L
The Form 4L goes further, expanding material compatibility to include third-party resins and more specialty materials, such as ceramics and polyurethanes. This open-material platform makes it highly adaptable for industries requiring specialized properties in their parts.

Winner: Form 4L – The broader range of certified materials provides greater flexibility for complex applications.

5. Ease of Use and Workflow Integration

Form 3L
With features like automatic resin dispensing and the PreForm software, the Form 3L is designed for intuitive use with minimal supervision. In-field repairs for components like the Light Processing Units and the optics window add to its practicality in various work environments.

Form 4L
The Form 4L includes similar user-friendly features but also integrates more advanced diagnostic tools and remote monitoring through Formlabs’ Dashboard. This setup allows users to track and manage prints from anywhere, ideal for larger operations requiring remote oversight.

Winner: Form 4L – Additional diagnostic and monitoring capabilities make the Form 4L better suited for busy production workflows.

6. Reliability and Maintenance

Form 3L
Designed for reliability, the Form 3L includes user-replaceable components that support 24/7 uptime. Integrated sensors help maintain optimal print conditions, allowing for consistent results even during lengthy print jobs.

Form 4L
The Form 4L’s fewer moving parts and advanced sensors provide a higher success rate, with less maintenance required over time. Its re-engineered consumables are built to last, adding to its suitability for demanding production schedules.

Winner: Form 4L – Enhanced reliability features and lower maintenance demands make the Form 4L preferable for continuous operations.

7. Part Quality and Finish

Form 3L
The Form 3L delivers a smooth surface finish and precise detail across large parts, thanks to its dual LPUs and refined resin management system. Printed parts resemble injection-molded quality, making it a great choice for high-fidelity prototyping.

Form 4L
In addition to matching the Form 3L’s quality, the Form 4L offers sharper details with LFD technology. The highly collimated light source and anti-aliasing features allow for subpixel-level precision, producing parts that require minimal post-processing.

Winner: Form 4L – Superior optics ensure the highest quality, particularly on intricate or production-grade parts.

8. Which Printer Should You Choose?

Choose the Form 3L if:

Choose the Form 4L if:

The Form 3L and Form 4L are both strong contenders for large-format printing, each with distinct advantages depending on your needs. The Form 3L offers robust, affordable large-scale printing, ideal for prototyping and occasional production. Meanwhile, the Form 4L is built for higher productivity, with enhanced speed, material flexibility, and reliability. For businesses focused on scaling production or working with diverse materials, the Form 4L is likely the better investment, while the Form 3L remains an excellent choice for those prioritizing quality and cost-efficiency.

In the world of professional-grade 3D printing, the Formlabs Form 3+ and Form 4 are both stand-out, premier options. Both models deliver exceptional part quality, meeting the demands of industrial prototyping and production. However, the Form 4 introduces MSLA (Masked SLA) technology, enhancing speed, reliability, and automation.

This comparison breaks down the key differences, strengths, and trade-offs to help you decide which model best fits your needs. You can purchase both of these printers on the EAC Additive eStore.

1. Print Technology Comparison

Both the Form 3+ and Form 4 utilize resin-based 3D printing technology. Both printers cure liquid resin layer by layer using a light source. The primary difference lies in how each layer is drawn and separated from the tank membrane, impacting the printing process’s speed and reliability.

Form 3+: Low Force Stereolithography (LFS):

Form 4: Low Force Display (LFD):

Winner: Form 4 – While both printers excel, the Form 4’s DLP technology offers faster, more precise results with fewer maintenance requirements.

2. Speed

Speed is a major advantage of the Form 4. Its DLP engine cures entire layers in seconds, resulting in print times up to 5x faster than the Form 3+.

Winner: Form 4 – Ideal for businesses that need high-speed outputs and rapid production workflows.

3. Print Quality and Accuracy

Both models offer 25-micron resolution, but the Form 4’s improved optics provide better accuracy and detail.

Winner: Form 4 – Consistently delivers superior precision, especially on complex or production-grade parts.

4. Material Compatibility

Winner: Form 4 – Its open platform offers unmatched flexibility with certified third-party resins.

5. Ease of Use and Workflow Integration

Winner: Form 4 – With its easier setup and improved consumables, the Form 4 streamlines the printing process.

6. Reliability and Print Success Rate

Both printers are known for reliability, but the Form 4 offers a higher success rate, thanks to fewer moving parts and enhanced sensors.

Winner: Form 4 – Its simplified design makes it the better option for continuous or large-scale production.

7. Post-Processing Workflow

Both models integrate with Formlabs’ Form Wash and Form Cure systems, making post-processing simple and efficient.

Winner: Form 4 – Better support management reduces post-processing time.

8. Pricing and Value

Winner:

9. Which Printer Should You Choose?

Choose the Form 3+ if:

Choose the Form 4 if:

10. Final Verdict: Form 3+ or Form 4?

Both the Form 3+ and Form 4 are outstanding printers, each excelling in specific areas. The Form 3+ is ideal for smaller teams or individuals looking for professional results on a budget. Meanwhile, the Form 4 is the clear choice for businesses focused on scaling production, speed, and precision.

If speed, reliability, and versatility are top priorities, the Form 4 offers unparalleled performance. However, for those seeking affordability without sacrificing quality, the Form 3+ remains a fantastic option.

Scanning the press on the topic of Additive Manufacturing, there’s a lot said about the features and capabilities of equipment. Data shows the primary applications of additive manufacturing. The overwhelming use of the technology is in the form of prototyping/iterating. Of course, it makes total sense. Equipment performance is now to the point where we can iterate physical things almost as fast as we can iterate digital things.  

However, AM manufacturers and pundits strive to see additive manufacturing take on a more prominent role in end-use part production. Adoption in this role would be a shot in the arm for the AM industry as a whole as unit sales and consumables would dramatically increase. AM sales organizations are intimately involved in sales activities on the ground. They are pressured by manufacturers to pursue implementation of their equipment at production levels and pressured by potential customers to resist these initiatives.  

This blog asks, “Are We Asking the Wrong Questions?”

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in Additive Manufacturing

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – seeks to launch products that satisfy requirements without any ancillary features. In software, this could be something as simple as a website with a single button that just says, “buy”. It’s easy to pursue this in code as it’s “just” code. Changing is easy. Implementing this concept for physical products is a bit more challenging. Mechanical Engineers are challenged to let go of the perceived ‘industry practice’ that is considered the foundation of product development. Never mind that many of these perceptions are decades old and have never been put into question. Rather than accepting “This is how we’ve always done it”, MVP asks, “Do we need to do it that way?” For instance, take a device that has a number of injection molded parts. Several of these parts may exist internally. Things like fan brackets, routing clips, mounting fixtures, etc. may never see the light of day. Yet, it’s generally accepted that these components would be injection molded. In most instances, the choice of material is made with minimal consideration. Opting for PC-ABS is a common, effortless decision, as its capabilities usually exceed the necessary requirements. This material is readily available, and its affordability makes it an even more attractive option. An engineer’s time is expensive and taking a deeper look at such nominal components to see if other materials or processes could be used is not seen as valuable. In other words, seeing what the minimum viable design for this component is, may not seem viable in the grand scheme of the overall product. 

Engineers are hesitant to dive into other possibilities not just because it may take more time to analyze but also because the downstream functions including testing, quality control/inspection, assembly, etc. are more familiar with the performance of these ‘traditional’ materials and methods. Not to mention that certain industries have rigorous criteria for conforming to regulatory requirements. 

Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing

Manufacturers, industry press, and AM Sales organizations put a lot of effort into focusing on the features and benefits of their products. Rightly so. The AM product offerings today are staggering. Consider that there are over 2000 manufacturers of AM devices, many of which have very niche applications. The quality, accuracy, and performance of these machines rival (and sometimes exceed) traditional processes such as casting, injection molding, and machining. When someone makes the claim, “you can’t use 3D printed parts for production” they are likely basing their view on an experience they had with a consumer-grade solution and have not witnessed the capabilities that exist today in the commercial market.  

Sales organizations lead with capabilities. They ask potential customers about their current equipment capabilities and happily report how much better the capabilities are of the latest and greatest. And customers are grateful to hear about this. They are astounded to hear how this will increase their ability to iterate faster during development. Or, how much better their jigs/fixturing will be when they implement these improved capabilities. This approach does nothing to address the desire to transform volume production by implementing this technology. That’s because it is no longer about capabilities. 

A Shift in Additive Manufacturing

Sales and Marketing organizations need to re-tool their approaches. They need to take a more holistic approach to the industry to begin asking the right questions. Organizations that implement additive manufacturing see the benefits of their development efforts. The equipment is easily managed by a single person or a small team that doesn’t require full-time care. Small to medium-sized manufacturers may only print 10-15 parts/month. This is hardly fulfilling the promise of additive to be transformational.  

When the conversation turns to using this equipment for production devices, there is immediate pushback. For good reason. The sales pitch promises the ability to produce on the same machine that you proof. The ability to manage quality in line. And the ability to change quickly if needed. None of that is appealing to a manufacturer who has spent months/years developing a product, making sure it meets all requirements and conforms to all regulatory needs. 

When a product is developed, typically outside vendors are selected early in the process. These are vendors that appear on their “Approved Supplier” list. Getting on that list involved a great deal of effort on behalf of both parties. Often, manufacturers appear onsite with the vendor to ensure their processes and equipment are validated. Understanding their process control and inspection capabilities is important.  

The AM Industry is asking customers to become their own suppliers. To do this, manufacturers will need to acquire the equipment, spend time qualifying the machines and processes, establish rigorous processes to maintain that qualification as well as ensure the equipment is maintained. This requires employees, facilities planning, and ongoing expenses that they never had to worry about when just selecting an approved supplier. Not to mention the increased overhead required in their ERP/MRP systems to ensure the process runs smoothly. 

Addressing the entire ecosystem of Additive Manufacturing

Until the industry addresses the entire ecosystem around additive manufacturing and engineers become more comfortable with exploring contemporary alternatives to material and design, it’s going to be a challenge to fully adoption AM for production. 

A key component to making this happen will be establishing partnerships with leading, innovative organizations that can guide manufacturers through consultation and assessment of their current state. From there, a trusted partner can ensure viable equipment selection and process improvement will result in future success.

The top processes in Additive Manufacturing (AM) can be generally categorized as filament-based, resin-based, or powder-based. While there are some variations in these processes, the vast majority of materials fall within these three categories. Additive Manufacturing has a wide range of materials that fit many different applications and industries. From aerospace, engineering, automotive, medical, and so many more, looking at different properties can help you decide what material is best for you and your specific needs

1. Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)

Filament-based materials are typically housed in a spool format. Filaments are commonly found in two diameters: 1.75mm and 3mm with the former being the most common. By far the largest variety of materials for AM are available as filament. The most common include:

PLA (Polylactic Acid)

PETG (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol)

ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene)

Filament-based materials are also available in some interesting variations including:

PEI and PAEK materials have exceptional thermal and mechanical properties making them ideal for aerospace and medical applications. They require very high temperatures in an enclosed environment in order to print well. They are also available as composites with carbon fiber and glass fiber.

2. Powder-Based Materials

These materials are available in fine powder. The powder is used in processes such as SLS (Selective Laser Sintering), MJF (Multi Jet Fusion), DMLS (Direct Metal Laser Sintering), and Binder Jetting.

The most common powder-based materials include:

Nylon (polyamide or PA)

Polypropylene (PP)

Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU)

3. Vat Photopolymerisation Materials

These materials use a photoreactive resin that solidifies when exposed to a particular wavelength of light. The most common processes include SLA (Stereo Lithographic Apparatus), MSLA (Masked SLA), and DLP (Digital Light Processing). One of the challenging aspects of these resin-based processes is the classification of materials. Unlike filament and powder, resins derive their properties from chemical reactions that do not rely on heat. As a result, resin materials are generally classified based on the physical characteristics of their final (cured) state.

Elastomeric

Clear

Durable

Rigid

Tough

For those who have worked with 3D printers in the early days of 3D printing over 30 years ago, their first exposure to 3D printed parts was likely a photopolymer part. In those days, the parts were extremely brittle and could barely be used for more than a visual representation of a part. Over the last few years, that has changed dramatically. Resin-based parts can hold their own when compared to other AM processes.

The amount of materials available for Additive Manufacturing is enormous and covers a wide gamut of performance, aesthetics, and practicality. That said, there is a narrow band of materials that are most popular. Manufacturers of these materials encourage AM users to explore beyond this narrow selection in an effort to promote end-use adoption of AM as a viable production solution. There are many cases where 3D-printed parts have matched (or even exceeded) the performance of parts produced using injection molding or machining. By selecting a material that can be used for both prototyping and end-use, the development and production processes can be seamless.