Metal binder jetting and laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) both start with a bed of fine metal powder, but they make the part dense at different stages. LPBF melts each layer with a laser inside the printer, so the part is solid metal when the build ends. Binder jetting prints a liquid binder into the powder at low temperature and produces a fragile green part, which only becomes dense metal later in a sintering furnace, much as in metal injection molding (MIM).
That split moves the hard problems around. LPBF has to manage heat during the build, while binder jetting has to manage shrinkage in the furnace. The binder jetting explainer summarizes Desktop Metal's comparison of the two; this page looks at each trade-off in more depth. Desktop Metal and HP sell binder jetting systems and EOS sells LPBF systems, so their claims are attributed.
Where the metal is joined
In LPBF, a laser scans each cross-section and melts the powder as it goes. EOS's M 290, a mid-size machine, uses a single 400 W fiber laser with a focus diameter of about 100 µm, and EOS's Ti64 process for it runs in argon with 30 µm layers. In binder jetting, a gantry of printheads sweeps the bed and deposits binder instead. HP says its Metal Jet printers place up to 630 million nanogram-sized drops per second on a 1200 × 1200 dpi grid, with layers typically 35 to 140 microns thick. Desktop Metal gives 30 to 200 microns as the usual range. After printing, the whole build box is cured in an oven to strengthen the binder, the parts are dug out of the loose powder, and they go to a furnace.
Green parts and sintering shrinkage
A green part is mostly powder held by a little polymer. HP says its green parts are up to 98 to 99 percent metal by weight, against typically less than 93 percent for MIM feedstock and avoids MIM's long wax debinding step. Because the powder is only loosely packed, the part shrinks as it sinters. A 2019 review of binder-jetted 316L stainless steel by Mirzababaei and Pasebani at Oregon State University describes green parts that start around 60 percent dense and shrink by up to about 15 percent linearly in the final stage of sintering.
Parts can also sag or distort at furnace temperature. Desktop Metal says they may need setters, as in MIM, and that its Live Sinter software predicts shrinkage and distortion and pre-distorts the design so the sintered part comes out on size. LPBF has no such step: the part is already dense when it leaves the machine, though it still carries stresses from the build.
Supports and thermal stress
During printing, binder jetting has the easier time. Loose powder supports every part and nothing melts, so no supports are printed. The Oregon State review notes that binder jetting is the only powder bed process that is not fusion-based, so its parts carry none of the residual stress of laser processing. LPBF parts need both structural and thermal supports, Desktop Metal says, followed by several hours of stress relief at 400 to 800 °C and support removal, often by wire EDM or milling. Binder jetting's version of the support problem appears later, in the furnace, where Desktop Metal says parts often need ceramic or metal supports unless simulation software compensates for distortion.
Speed and throughput claims
Desktop Metal argues that binder jetting is the fastest way to print metal parts in volume, because the printheads make the same number of passes over the bed whether it holds one part or many, while a laser has to trace every part. In its example, printing four units instead of one typically takes several times as long on LPBF, but adds only 5 to 10 percent to a binder jet build if all four fit in one bed. It adds that many LPBF systems now use several lasers but remain significantly slower.
These are a binder jetting vendor's claims, and the same guide concedes that curing and sintering add time, so electron beam melting can sometimes finish a single part sooner. It still describes LPBF as often the slowest end to end. For a sense of laser build rates, EOS's Ti64 process for the M 290 lists a volume rate of 5 mm³ per second, about 18 cm³ per hour. EOS itself calls binder jetting a high-speed alternative for certain metal and ceramic applications.
Density, properties and part size
LPBF melts the powder completely, and the Oregon State review notes that the lack of local melting in binder jetting makes high relative density harder to reach. It concludes that laser-melted 316L offers better mechanical properties and less porosity than binder-jetted 316L, although hot isostatic pressing can bring binder-jetted parts to near full density. HP says Metal Jet parts exceed 96 percent density, similar to MIM, with isotropic properties that meet ASTM and MPIF standards for 316L and 17-4PH. Desktop Metal adds that sintering gives a fine, equiaxed grain structure rather than the columnar grains of laser and electron beam melting, citing research by ExOne.
Part size and material range differ too. HP's Metal Jet S100 has an effective build volume of 430 × 309 × 170 mm, and Desktop Metal says binder jetting currently favors high volumes of parts that are fist-sized or smaller. The EOS M 290 builds within 250 × 250 × 325 mm. HP names 316L and 17-4PH as its own materials, with other steels and nickel alloys available from approved suppliers, while EOS lists a much longer set of qualified alloys for the M 290, from aluminum and titanium to nickel and copper alloys.
Cost drivers
Neither process is cheap to install. EOS puts binder jetting systems at about $350,000 to $600,000, and the green parts still need a curing oven and a sintering furnace. Desktop Metal points to several cost levers for binder jetting: most commercial systems use MIM-grade powders of about 9 to 25 µm, drawing on the existing MIM powder supply; most loose powder can be recovered, with a cited study reporting up to 96 percent material efficiency; and because print time barely grows with part count, cost per part falls as the bed fills. On the LPBF side, it lists 2 to 3 hours of skilled machine preparation per build, stress relief and support removal by machining.
| Aspect | Binder jetting | Laser powder bed fusion |
|---|---|---|
| How powder is joined | Binder at low temperature, then furnace sintering | A laser melts powder during the build |
| Layer thickness cited | 35 to 140 µm (HP); 30 to 200 µm (Desktop Metal) | 30 µm in EOS's Ti64 process |
| Shrinkage after printing | Up to about 15% linear during sintering (Oregon State review) | No sintering step |
| Printed supports | None; loose powder holds parts | Structural and thermal supports |
| Residual stress from printing | None, per the Oregon State review | Relieved at 400 to 800 °C, per Desktop Metal |
| Density | Over 96%, per HP; near full after hot isostatic pressing | Less porosity than binder jetting for 316L, per the Oregon State review |
| Grain structure, per Desktop Metal | Fine and equiaxed | Columnar |
| Example build volume | 430 × 309 × 170 mm (HP Metal Jet S100) | 250 × 250 × 325 mm (EOS M 290) |
| Time added by more parts, per Desktop Metal | 5 to 10% if they fit in one bed | Several times longer for four parts |
At a glance
Strengths
- Choose binder jetting for high volumes of small, similar parts, where print time barely grows with part count
- Choose binder jetting to avoid printed supports and residual stress from printing
- Choose LPBF for the highest density and the widest range of qualified alloys
- Choose LPBF for one-off or low-volume parts, where binder jetting's full-bed advantage shrinks
Limitations
- Binder jetting: up to about 15 percent linear shrinkage must be predicted and compensated
- Binder jetting: curing, depowdering and sintering add steps and equipment
- LPBF: supports, stress relief and machining add cost to every part
- LPBF: print time grows with every part added to the build
Typical applications
- Binder jetting: MIM-style stainless steel parts at volumes too low to justify molds, per Desktop Metal
- Binder jetting: parts moving from LPBF prototypes to higher-volume production, per Desktop Metal
- LPBF: aerospace, automotive, medical, tooling and turbomachinery parts, per EOS
Materials for this process
- 316L stainless steel
- 17-4 PH stainless steel
- Nickel alloy 718
- Nickel alloy 625
- Ti-6Al-4V titanium
- Copper
- AlSi10Mg aluminum
- Cobalt-chromium alloy
- Maraging steel
Common questions
How much do binder jetted metal parts shrink?
A lot, and the amount has to be designed in. The Oregon State review of binder-jetted 316L describes green parts starting around 60 percent dense and shrinking up to about 15 percent linearly during sintering. Desktop Metal and HP both offer software that predicts shrinkage and distortion and scales the printed part to compensate.
Are binder jetted parts as dense as laser-printed parts?
Usually not straight from the furnace. HP claims over 96 percent density for Metal Jet parts, similar to MIM. The Oregon State review concludes that laser-melted 316L has less porosity and better mechanical properties than binder-jetted 316L, though hot isostatic pressing can bring binder-jetted parts close to full density.
Is binder jetting faster than LPBF?
For full builds of many parts, Desktop Metal says yes, because the printheads cover the bed in the same number of passes regardless of part count. For a single part, curing and sintering add time, and Desktop Metal concedes that another powder bed process can sometimes finish first. These are vendor claims.
Do binder jetted parts need supports?
Not during printing, because the loose powder holds them. Desktop Metal says parts often need ceramic or metal supports in the sintering furnace unless simulation software compensates for distortion. LPBF parts need printed supports that are cut off afterward.
Sources
- EOS M 290 system data sheet EOS · Checked 2026-11-02
- EOS Titanium Ti64 for EOS M 290 (30 µm) process data sheet EOS · Checked 2026-11-02
- HP Metal Jet technology: technical white paper HP · Checked 2026-11-02
- The Ultimate Guide to Laser-Free Metal 3D Printing (binder jetting) Desktop Metal · Checked 2026-11-02
- A Review on Binder Jet Additive Manufacturing of 316L Stainless Steel (Mirzababaei and Pasebani, Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing, 2019) Oregon State University via OSTI.gov · Checked 2026-11-02
- What Is A Powder Printer? How Powder 3D Printing Is Changing the Manufacturing Landscape EOS · Checked 2026-11-02
- HP Metal Jet 3D printing platform HP · Checked 2026-11-02
- DMLS Metal 3D Printing EOS · Checked 2026-11-02
An explainer synthesized from the cited references, not hands-on testing. Vendor names for processes are trademarks of their owners and are mapped to the ISO/ASTM 52900 families for orientation.