Best 3D Printers of 2017
Want the best 3D printer? We analyzed and evaluated over 30 models, buying the top 10 models available for a rigorous, hands-on testing process. After spending over 250 hours performing side-by-side tests, we had some clear winners …. and losers. Our expert testers created over 150 evaluation prints to compare between models, as well as compared the ease of use, setup, and capabilities of each printer to determine scores. Keep reading to see which ones are the best of the best when it comes to digital fabrication and which ones are better left by the wayside.
Read the full review below >
Test Results and Ratings
|Displaying 1 - 5 of 10||<< Previous | View All | Next >>|
Analysis and Award Winners
Unrivaled print quality
Great customer support
Best print capabilities
Few instructional videos
Receiving the top score overall and the top spot in our Print Quality metric, the Ultimaker 2+ earned the Editors Choice award for being the best overall. This model is compact and stylish, producing exceptionally nice prints that stood out from the rest of the competition. It is also essentially a turnkey printer, ready to go right out of the box with little to no assembly required, with a helpful app and extensive documentation to guide you through your first print. This is a highly capable printer with a large build volume and a competent and helpful support team to back it up. Unfortunately, all of this comes at a cost, with the Ultimaker having one of the highest prices of the group. This printer is for those that want the nicest prints possible, such as prototyping or designing in a professional setting or the 3D printing enthusiast.
Read full review: Ultimaker 2+
Best Value for Ease of Use
Sindoh 3DWOX DP201
Easy to use
Exceptionally easy to setup
Good print quality
This extraordinarily easy to use, turnkey printer is the best pick for someone who just wants a model that reliably works without fuss. This model is practically ready to go right out of the box, with no assembly required. The DP201 by Sindoh 3DWOX created overall good prints, was the only one of the group that reliably printed over a network in our testing, and essentially eliminates the typical learning curve associated with 3D printing. This printer is a good value, holding its own against printers that cost close to double its list price, and is a good option for those that are willing to pay a little more instead of spending time tinkering with and adjusting their printer on a regular basis. This makes it a great pick for community spaces, such as schools, libraries, or makerspaces, with the built-in webcam for remote monitoring being an added bonus. However, the cost per print is slightly higher as it is restricted to Sindoh filament cartridges and is limited to printing in PolyLactic Acid (PLA).
Read full review: Sindoh 3DWOX DP201
Best for Tight Budgets
QIDI Technology X-One
Above average print quality
Easy to setup
Small build area
Email is the only method of contacting the manufacturer
Surprising us with its performance, the X-One held its own against printers that were orders of magnitude more expensive. This model produced overall above average prints, was very easy to use and setup, and only required some minor tweaking to get good results. This model didn't have the best support of the group and has a very small build area, but it offers a fantastic value for those that are on the tightest of budgets and want the most bang for the buck. There aren't a ton of convenience features and a small learning curve but this is a solid introductory printer for those looking to get started with 3D printing and don't want to break the bank doing it, making it a fantastic choice for the amateur or home hobbyist.
Read full review: QIDI Technology X-One
Analysis and Test Results
3D printers have rapidly decreased in price over the past years, leading to an explosion of popularity. We looked at close to 35 different models, narrowing our selection down to the top 10 to purchase and test head-to-head. All in all, we conducted about 45 different tests to rank these products, ranging from extensive print quality assessments to how helpful the customer support was.
The scores ranged from 0-100, based on each printer's subscore in our four weighted rating metrics: Print Quality. Ease of Use, Print Capabilities, and Support. The following sections detail how each printer stacked up against the competitions, where they excelled, and where they had less than stellar performances.
Print Quality is the highest weighted rating metric of our review, comprising 40% of the total score. We selected 15 different test models for each printer to make, in both PolyLactic Acid (PLA) and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) whenever possible, and used those to evaluate each printer and determine the score.
A panel — made up of novice, intermediate, and advanced 3D printer users — rated each test print without knowing which machine produced it, to remove any possibility of bias. The chart below shows which printers came out on top and which ones were wanting in terms of quality.
As shown above, the top model — and Editors' Choice award winner for Best Overall — is the Ultimaker 2+, earning a fantastic 8 out of 10. The Ulimaker 2+ produced high-quality prints across the board, in both PLA and ABS.
This model led the way in most of the print test, making a particularly great 3D Benchy, wireframe cube, and exceptional spiral vase.
The Ultimaker did struggle a bit with bed adhesion on larger ABS models, warping slightly or completely popping off in extreme cases, whether we were using a glue stick, hairspray, or blue painter's tape. The Ultimaker 2+ distinguished itself by doing exceedingly well at printing overhanging regions and bridging unsupported spans. In addition, it also did quite well in our support test.
The printer left a high-quality surface finish on the underside of the supported areas without printing support that was too difficult to remove.
Following the Ultimaker 2+, the Zortrax M200 Pro earned the runner-up position with a score of 7 out of 10. This model is limited to a proprietary filament, so all tests were conducted with Z-ABS, rather than generic PLA and ABS. Unlike almost every other model in this test, we had almost no issue with bed adhesion on the Zortrax. The bed on this printer has a series of holes that will fill slightly while printing, making a very, very secure attachment.
In fact, we actually had some issues removing fragile prints without breaking, such as the Eiffel tower. In addition to struggling with fragile prints, this model was one of the worst at bridging or printing over unsupported sections. It would also leave unwanted strands of plastic on occasion.
However, these were the only real issues we found with this printer. This model made fantastic low-poly overhangs, even keeping the overhanging faces smooth and sharp. It also had great dimensional accuracy, shown by our nickel test, and hardly any noticeable z-wobble or inconsistencies on tall, skinny parts.
On top of all that, the Zortrax made a great spiral vase and made prints that were smooth with a good surface finish.
The bulk of the group followed this duo of top performing printers, with the FlashForge Creator Pro, Lulzbot TAZ 6, MakerGear M2, Sindoh 3DWOX DP201, and the QIDI Technology X-One all scoring a 6 out of 10.
The FlashForge actually created the best 3D Benchy of the entire group in PLA and was a top performer with ABS, by a unanimous decision, This jolly little boat has a variety of features designed specifically to torture test 3D printers, which you can read more about here .
The FlashForge also did very well in our overhang test, in both PLA and ABS, as well as printing high-quality figurines, on par or even rivaling the Ultimaker 2+.
However, we found that the FlashForge did a mediocre job at bridging and had a slight Z-wobble, with the tall tower having noticeable undulations on the side.
The Lulzbot TAZ 6 somewhat disappointed us in terms of print quality. While it did perform above average, we expected a little more from a model that received such rave reviews and has a price point similar to the top performer.
This printer has a solid frame, almost eliminating any Z-wobble. It also did quite well at bridging, overhangs, supports, and retraction, doing well in our hollow cube test, overhanging angle test, support test, and low-poly figurines test.
However, the critical issue that prevents the TAZ 6 scoring higher in this metric was the persistent issue we had with the lower layers being squashed.
After several back-and-forth emails with Lulzbot support and adjusting settings, the quality of the lower layers improved but still was lacking. It may be possible to improve this through further tinkering but for now limited this model's performance in print quality.
The MakerGear M2 also failed to impress us a ton in this metric, providing all-around average prints but having a premium price. The MakerGear uses their own custom software for slicing 3D models to print and this software took issue with some of our test files, refusing to slice them when the same file had no issues in the other programs, such as the bridging test and the Eiffel tower. This printer did do very well with overhanging regions, performing admirably well in our overhang test and making quality figurines.
However, it produced a mediocre Benchy boat, platform jack, and articulated elephant. It also had a tiny bit of noticeable Z-Axis wobble and struggled with retraction, evidenced by the tower and hollow cube test.
This printer also consistently did worse with ABS prints, and on the whole, was quite unremarkable.
The second to last of this group, the 3DWOX DP201 by Sindoh was an all-around solid printer with no major deficiencies. While it does only print in PLA, it prints well. This printer produced a very nice tall tower with no detectable Z-Axis wobble, as well as a fantastic threaded jar and lid with knurled grips. It also did very well in our retraction, bridging and overhang tests.
However, it produced a mediocre Benchy and elephant, as well as a thoroughly subpar Eiffel tower. It also had the unusual quirk of lacking a spiral vase mode that would only print a single layer wall thickness, creating a much thicker vase than the others.
The QIDI X-One thoroughly surprised us in this test, holding its own with printers that cost 2-5x its list price. This model did surprisingly well when printing with ABS, doing better than most of the others. It did very well at bridging and printing overhangs, scoring well in both of those tests and made an excellent spiral vase.
It did struggle a little with the tall tower test, exhibiting much more wobble than the Lulzbot or the Sindoh, and didn't do the best job in the supports test, completely fusing the support structure to the model with PLA.
Lagging behind the bulk of the printers, the Maker Select V2 by Monoprice scored a 5 out of 10 for its average performance. This model really struggled with printing ABS, plagued by bed adhesion issues no matter what we tried.
This model essentially produced mediocre prints across the board when compared to the other models, having much more Z-Axis wobble and layer separation, as well as failing to produce smooth face and a nice surface finish.
The final two printers in the group — the M3D Micro and the da Vinci 1.0 Pro — both earned a 3 out of 10, but for vastly different reasons. The M3D performed subpar in every single test, except the support test. The supported section came out alright and was decently easy to remove but the rest of the print still looked terrible, even on the higher quality settings. This model failed to print tons of test models, either detaching from the bed, shifting layers, or layers separating. This printed made some passable attempts at the simpler, easy to print model but good luck trying anything complicated, especially when using ABS.
The da Vinci 1.0 Pro produced reasonably good prints, aside from the fact that it was albeit impossible to remove the raft from prints. However, this model was very prone to breaking, either arriving damaged or promptly having a part break within 5 minutes of unboxing. Purchased through Amazon, we were able to exchange easily without consequences, but gave up after the third round of swapping it for a new one.
Ease of Use
Following our massive set of tests for Print Quality, we moved on to assess the ease of use for each printer. This metric encompasses the difficulty at swapping out rolls of filament, the ease of the initial setup, the display on the printer — if there was one, how hard it was to level the bed, and the different methods of connecting to the printer. You can see how the printers stacked up in the chart below.
The Sindoh 3DWOX took home the top score, earning a 9 out of 10 for being exceptionally easy to use. This model will automatically swap filaments, preheating the nozzle and retracting it back into its cartridge. The cartridge can then be swapped for a new one or for a different color.
The Sindoh was ready to go out of the box, with no assembly required. This printer has semi-automatic bed leveling, instructing you how to adjust the screws to level the bed after probing.
This model uses the 3DWOX software to slice models, with data being transferred to the printer by via Wi-Fi, Ethernet or USB cable, or by a USB flash drive. The Sindoh has a high-quality, built-in display and will display the % completed and the estimated time remaining while printing, as well as a rendering of the 3D model being printed.
Following the ridiculously easy to use Sindoh, the Lulzbot TAZ 6, QIDI X-One, Ultimaker 2+, XYZ Printing da Vinci 1.0, and the Zortrax M200 all earned a 7 out of 10. The TAZ 6 requires you to manually change the filament but it was the easiest out of all the manual models to swap the filament. It is easy to feed the thicker 2.85mm filament through the guide tube and into the extruder, closing the latch after it is inserted.
The bed leveling is fully automatic on this printer and it will re-level before each print. This model does have a display but it is much less refined than the Sindoh's. It will show a bar graph of % completed and time elapsed while printing. You can connect to the Lulzbot via USB cable from a computer or print offline from a standard SD card. It uses a special edition of Cura as the recommended slicer — a relatively intuitive piece of software. Our biggest gripe with this model in terms of ease of use was the somewhat involved unboxing and assembly process.
You needed to attach the filament guide, Y-Axis, tool head, and connect a handful of cables to get the printer up and running. None of these tasks were particularly difficult and the documentation is thorough and very well done but it definitely is not a 100% turnkey 3d printer — understandable, due to its large size.
The QIDI was the polar opposite in terms of initial setup, only needing the spool holder mounted in the back and the filament guide connected to be ready to go. It was a little irritating to change filaments, as the back of the spool holder has a cap that must be unscrewed to put the new filament roll on. After the nozzle is sufficiently heated, you can manually feed the filament in while the extruder motor drives it out the nozzle. However, the QIDI is quite happy extruding indefinitely, meaning that you need to make sure you stop the motor after the filament has been successfully swapped by pressing the stop button on the touchscreen.
The display on the QIDI is actually quite nice, with a responsive touchscreen and backlit screen. This will display a bar segment with % printed, as well as the total time and time remaining while the printer is in use. This model uses the standard edition of Cura as a slice, with the option to print directly from your computer via USB or to use an SD card for standalone printing. It lacks a connector for a USB flash drive but it does include an SD to USB adapter, if you prefer to use a flash drive.
You need to manually level the print bed on the QIDI. While this is more difficult than the automatic or semi-automatic models, the 3-point leveling system was fairly easy to use, substantially more than other models, like the Monoprice Maker Select.
The Ultimaker 2+ is also easy to use, essentially ready to go straight out of the box. All that was required was to attach the spool holder. Ultimaker has a handy app with comprehensive documentation and instructions, on par with the thorough manual provided by Lulzbot. This was probably one of the easiest printers overall to initially setup and assembly, equivalent to the QIDI, Sindoh, and M3D.
The Ultimaker lacks automatic bed leveling but does have a series of prompts to guide you through the process, making it the easiest to level out of the printers that require manual bed leveling. This printer also uses the standard edition of Cura as the recommended slicer. Files can be sent directly to the printer from a computer via USB or a standard SD card can be used for standalone printing. The Ultimaker also has a simple display that shows a progress bar and an estimated countdown for the print being completed.
It was also very easy to swap different filaments on the Ultimaker using its semi-automatic method, though it was a little more difficult than the TAZ 6 or the Sindoh.
It was a little more difficult to swap filament on the Zortrax M200.To swap plastic, you need to go through the menus to select the correct option and the extruder motor will feed in or out. This model was very similar to the QIDI or the FlashForge in this respect, though the M200 will stop extruding automatically after a set time. It was extremely easy to level the print bed on the Zortrax, with it prompting you which knobs to turn and how much after probing, identical to the Sindoh. Unfortunately, the Zortrax was quite difficult to set up initially, requiring you to install the build plate, connect some cabling, route some wires, add a spool holder, filament guide tube, and then add the side panels and doors.
We found it to be unnecessarily difficult to attach the door and the documentation to be lacking when compared to the Lulzbot or Ultimaker. This printer uses the proprietary Z-Suite software as a slicer. It only prints from a standard size SD card and has a small display showing estimated time left and progress completed while printing.
The XYZ Printing da Vinci was also very easy to use, though it was a little easier to swap filaments than the Zortrax, similar to the Ultimaker. This model also has semi-automatic bed leveling, instructing you how to adjust the bed after probing, though the onscreen directions weren't quite as clear as the Zortrax.
There was basically zero setup required, just a somewhat involved unboxing process due to all the packaging materials. However, even with this abundance of packaging, this printer didn't fare well in shipping and had to be exchanged multiple times. This model uses the proprietary XYZware Pro as a slicer, which took a little longer to install than other programs. You need to print directly from a computer with a USB cable or over Wi-Fi, which we found to be quite unreliable.
Following this large group, the M3D earned a 6 out of 10 in this metric. This model had no setup required, other than downloading the necessary slicing software from the manufacturer's website. This model does have to be connected to a computer to print — something we found to be extremely frustrating, especially after the laptop was closed inadvertently mid-print. There is no display on the printer but the software displays a window showing time remaining and % completed. However, we found that the software crashed on a not infrequent basis. This printer checks the bed height prior to printing and is claimed to be self-leveling. We also found it fairly difficult to swap filaments.
Next, the Monoprice Maker Select and the FlashForge Creator Pro both earned a 5 out of 10. These models both took a little bit of assembly to set up, with the Maker Select's Y-Axis needing to be attached and the tool head of the FlashForge Creator Pro requiring mounting. It was a little hard to access the screws to attach the tool head and align it properly but it wasn't terribly difficult. The Maker Select utilizes Cura as a slicer — a standard option — while the FlashForge uses ReplicatorG. This wasn't the most user-friendly software and had a steeper learning curve than Cura.
These printers both can connect to your computer or print directly from an SD card, though the Maker Select uses a micro SD card. These both have practically identical displays — seemingly the standard for most 3D printers, showing the % completed. It was about average to swap filaments in both of these models but both had a subpar method of manual bed leveling.
The FlashForge leads you through a series of prompts, similar to the QIDI, though there are four adjustment points. The Maker Select also has 4 points but had much less clear directions than most other models, making it our least favorite to level.
Rounding out the back of the pack, the MakerGear M2 earned a 4 out of 10. We weren't huge fans of this printer, finding it somewhat of a pain to use. This model has to be connected to a computer to start printing but you can pull the cable after it has already started. This model also lacks a display but a compatible one can be purchased as an upgrade. The setup process was about average, only attaching the build plate, Bowden tube, and spool holder. However, you need to download Slic3r to slice 3D files for printing and printrun by Pronterface to actually run the printer and select files off of the SD card. Finally, it was also reasonably difficult to swap filaments and level the bed, requiring you to connect to a computer to swap filaments and follow a series of prompts that aren't very clear to level the bed.
Making up 20% of the total score, our Print Capabilities metric evaluated what you can do with these products. We ranked and scored each model based on their build volume, build plate, the types of filament each model was compatible with, the types of cooling, as well as the different software programs, or slicers, that could be used with each machine. The chart below shows how each printer stacked up.
As shown above, two models stood out for having exceptional printing capabilities: the Lulzbot TAZ 6 and the Ultimaker 2+, both scoring 7 out of 10. The Lulzbot distinguished itself with its exceptionally large built area, measuring in at 280 x 280 x 250mm (11 in x 11 in x 9.8in), or about 19,432 cubic centimeters (1185.8 cubic inches). This printer has one of the largest build areas out of the models that we looked at and has a heated borosilicate glass bed covered with a PEI print surface. The PEI helps prevent bed adhesion issues, especially with filaments prone to warping, like ABS.
The TAZ 6 is compatible with a wide array of filaments, with a maximum nozzle temperature of 300°C and a maximum bed temperature of 120°C. The special Lulzbot edition of Cura was a little more difficult to use than the standard edition but this printer is compatible with more sophisticated slicers, such as Simplify3D — though these programs typically aren't free.
The Ultimaker 2+ utilized the standard edition of Cura — our favorite of the free slicers — and is compatible with Simplify3D. It has a decently large build volume — 223 x 223 x 205mm — though not quite on the same level as the Lulzbot. The heated print surface is borosilicate glass and we did have some minimal bed adhesion issues, mainly with ABS. The Ultimaker 2+ is compatible with a large array of generic filaments, such as PLA, ABS, PC, Nylon, or any filament that has a print temperature below 260°C. Both the Lulzbot and the Ultimaker 2+ have 2 layer cooling fans.
Following this top pair of printers, the MakerGear M2 and the Monoprice Maker Select both earned a 6 out of 10. The Maker Select allows you to use Cura to control it, far superior to the trio of programs needed to run the MakerGear: M2, Slic3r, and Printrun. However, both of these printers can be upgraded to work with Simplify3D. The MakerGear has a slightly larger printable area than the Maker Select, 200x 250 x 200mm compared to 200 x 200 x 175mm. However, both of these printers are a significant reduction from the enormous build volumes of the Lulzbot and Ultimaker.
The MakerGear has a borosilicate glass bed with a replaceable print surface, vastly superior to the thin aluminum plate with a stick-on build surface of the Maker Select. We had some bed adhesion issues with the MakerGear but substantially fewer than the Monoprice. These both take generic, 1.75mm filaments, though the MakerGear has a wider temperature range than the Monoprice, 300°C to 260°C, putting it on par with the TAZ 6. These printers did have reduced cooling capabilities, each only having a single layer fan, thus cooling the print less evenly.
Next, the FlashForge, QIDI, Sindoh, and the Zortrax all earned a 5 out of 10 for their printing capabilities. While the QIDI used our preferred slicer, Cura, both the Sindoh and the Zortrax used proprietary software exclusive to them and the FlashForge used ReplicatorG. While we got the hang of the proprietary slicers relatively quickly, we were continually baffled by the clunky interface of ReplicatorG and found it to be much less intuitive.
The FlashForge, Zortrax, and the Sindoh all ranked about average in terms of build volume, about on par with the Monoprice Maker Select. The QIDI has a substantially smaller build area at 150 x 150 x 150mm, causing it to lose a few points.
Both the Zortrax and the Sindoh scored highly when we evaluated build plates, on par with the Lulzbot. The Zortrax has a series of holes in the bed that help firmly attach model — we never had any issue with the print curling off of the bed and warping. In fact, we usually struggled to remove the print. The removable flexible built plate on the Sindoh makes it a breeze to remove prints, though larger items were prone to warping.
The QIDI and FlashForge failed to impress us with their print beds but we didn't have too much of an issue of prints popping off if we used a glue stick or hairspray to adhere them. However, these printers did earn points by being compatible with generic filaments, unlike the Sindoh or Zortrax. The Sindoh is also limited to PLA only, losing it some points.
Finishing out the group, the XYZ Printing da Vinci and the M3D earned a 4 and a 2 out of 10, respectively. We found the proprietary slicer for both of these models to be abysmal, with limited settings to adjust and an overall unreliable performance. The XYZ has about an average build size, on par with printers like the Monoprice Maker Select or the Zortrax. The M3D has the smallest build area of the group, requiring us to scale down many of our test models to actually print them.
The plastic build surface on the M3D was pretty much terrible, with almost every ABS print failing and popping off the bed. The bed was also easily damaged and we had to purchase a replacement during the course of testing. The M3D did redeem itself a tiny bit by being compatible with generic filaments, though you did need to print a spool holder. The XYZ is limited to its own brand of filament, loaded in cartridges. These models also had a much lower maximum nozzle temperature than the other printers, on the order of 20-100°C lower.
The final metric in our test — Support — accounted for the final 10% of the total score. 3D printers are still a relatively immature technology — unfamiliar to most people — and having a helpful and supportive manufacturer can make all the difference between a quick fix or hours of frustration. We evaluated the different ways to contact the manufacturer, the helpfulness of the customer support, the warranty on each printer, and if there were instructional videos online. The chart below shows how each model scored.
The Zortrax M200 took home the top score, earning an 8 out of 10. This printer had tons of helpful instructional videos to guide you through everything from improving print quality to replacing worn out or damaged parts. You can contact Zortrax by email, phone, or instant chat and we found their team to be quite helpful, though not quite as much as the team behind Lulzbot or Ultimaker. However, they do have the best warranty at 24 months for the individual customer.
A trio of printers took home the runner-up score in this metric, with the Lulzbot TAZ 6, the MakerGear M2, and the Ultimaker 2+ all earned a 7 out of 10.
While the Lulzbot does have a YouTube channel with a handful of helpful videos, it wasn't immediately apparent and took some searching to find, losing it a few points. However, it did redeem itself when it came to contacting customer support, having both an email and phone number. They state that their support is available 24/7 and you will receive a reply within one business day. True to their word, we received an email back at 2:30 am. We found the support staff to be extremely helpful, guiding us through solving the squashed bottom layer problem that we were having. While they did help us dramatically improve print quality, it still wasn't solved 100%.
We also had an issue with the nozzle leaking, which Lulzbot did fix, though we did have to pay for shipping back to them. The TAZ 6 also includes a 12-month warranty that can be extended for up to 3 years at an additional cost.
Ultimaker only had a few support videos on their website but it did have plenty of pictures. They have both email and phone number to contact and are available Mon-Fri, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm(ET). They responded very quickly to our questions with helpful links and instructions to fix our problem included in their response. There is also a 12-month warranty on their printer for the original purchaser — something to note if you are looking at a secondhand model.
The MakerGear M2 similarly had only a few videos on their YouTube page and both an email and phone number to contact support. However, their support line closed earlier than the Ultimaker at 4:00 pm. They were also very helpful in their response to the raft printing poorly. The M2 comes with a 6-month warranty but it can be upgraded to 12 months for an additional cost.
Next, the FlashForge, Monoprice Maker Select, QIDI, Sindoh, and XYZ all earned a 6 out of 10. All of these printers had a handful of videos, except for the Maker Select, which had none. However, the Monoprice, FlashForge, and XYZ were the only ones of this group to have a USA contact number. These manufacturers all had either email or support ticket methods of contact and were somewhat helpful to our questions. Sindoh and FlashForge were the most helpful, with Monoprice being the least. The FlashForge shipped with the shortest warranty of 3 months, with the Monoprice and XYZ having a 12-month warranty.
Rounding out the back of the pack, the M3D earned a 5 out of 10 for its average support. They only had two videos and it didn't appear that you could contact customer support via phone. The only method of contact that we found was a contact form on their site. They were reasonably helpful but the printer only comes with a 3-month warranty, with an extended option available to purchase.
Hopefully, this review has helped you find the perfect product for your needs and budget. We bought the top models out there, so you don't have to. For more information on how we scored these products, Take a look at our comprehensive How We Test article for a detailed breakdown of our 3D printer testing process and methodologies.
— David Wise and Austin Palmer
Table of Contents
You Might Also Like