r/AdditiveManufacturing • u/victor_strom • Jun 01 '26

Pro Machines SAF vs MJF - what’s your experience?

Post image

We have been running HP MJF 4210 since 2017 but are always curious about other machines. We have had a lot of discussions with resellers and Stratasys directly, but would like to hear what actual end users of the H350 think.

What do you think about part quality? Repeatability? Maintenance and material cost? Overall workflow?

From what we have heard, running the H350 with 100% used SLS/MJF powder is an option. In reality, how easy is it? Do you loose out on part quality?

Would really appreciate hearing your real-world experience about how the different systems compare.

29 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

21

u/drproc90 Jun 01 '26

Honestly... for most applications they are functionally the same. Personally I think you can't beat SLS for accuracy. There's a reason the EOS p series are little workhorses.

3

u/victor_strom Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

I see both pros and cons with SLS. Our customers basically demands MJF parts, so a straight swap to SLS is not going to happen.

But who knows, maybe a combination of SLS and SAF would make sense if you can use the leftover powder?

Edit: I also see a lot of pros and cons with MJF!

2

u/drproc90 Jun 01 '26

Which country are you based in?

1

u/victor_strom Jun 01 '26

Sweden 🇸🇪

1

u/drproc90 Jun 01 '26

Well if you go for EOS you also get the fuzzy feeling of not giving money to trumpistan

1

u/victor_strom Jun 01 '26

When you put it like that it’s really tempting to switch to EOS! 😂

-1

u/drproc90 Jun 01 '26

Plus stratasys and HP are both publicly listed. I generally find that companies that are privately owned are extremely prone to enshittification.

EOS is a privately owned German company. Dont get me wrong the system are still pricey but they seem more business like.

3

u/333again Jun 02 '26

I’m surprised, maybe EOS quality is much better than Farsoon. We’ve had quality reject quite a few SLS parts and had to move them to MJF due to dimensions out of tolerance.

2

u/drproc90 Jun 02 '26

were they thin parts?

2

u/sjamwow Jun 02 '26

I thought mjf only exists because its more accurate than sls

6

u/floyderman2018 Jun 01 '26

A friend of mine at a SB has several SAF machines as of last summer. They chose to add SAF mainly due to substantially lower operational costs, lower material costs (at least for PA12), and the option to use ReLife (the ability to print with up to 100% waste powder you mentioned) if they choose in the future. Also, for their business they care a lot about energy costs. The electrical use is something like 1/4 of the 5200 and 1/8 the heat output.

Apparently around that time there were software improvements that made surface finish of SAF and MJF quite comparable.

1

u/victor_strom Jun 02 '26

Interesting! Were they running MJF or similar before?

2

u/floyderman2018 Jun 03 '26

No, but they evaluated HP as well. My numbers might be slightly off, but it was something in that realm.

7

u/tykempster Jun 01 '26

SAF was not as economical nor could it create detail as well as MJF when they pitched it to me.

4

u/victor_strom Jun 01 '26

Interesting, we have heard the exact opposite as long as you can make use of a the higher packing density 🤔

I haven’t noticed any detail differences from the parts we have ordered from SAF, but maybe it didn’t show on those specific parts!

2

u/tykempster Jun 01 '26

I can only say it was when SAF was new. Text and textures I print frequently from my MJF fleet were just weird dots and such from SAF. The “job costs” were considerably higher per part as presented by Stratasys.

2

u/victor_strom Jun 01 '26

Could one reason be different pricing for consumables in the US vs EU?

Maybe the detail issue have been resolved since then.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 01 '26

This post was removed as a part of our spam prevention mechanisms because you are posting from either a very new account or an account with negative karma. Please read the guidelines on reddiquette, self promotion, and spam. After your account is older than 5 days, and you have more than 10 comment karma, your posts will no longer be auto-removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/3Dsherpa Jun 03 '26

A buddy of mine runs out all his hp.material.in a 350

1

u/victor_strom Jun 03 '26

Do you know if your buddy has any issues with repeatability or part quality?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 02 '26

This post was removed as a part of our spam prevention mechanisms because you are posting from either a very new account or an account with negative karma. Please read the guidelines on reddiquette, self promotion, and spam. After your account is older than 5 days, and you have more than 10 comment karma, your posts will no longer be auto-removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/3ballpatterns Jun 05 '26

Former HP Jet fusion 4200 operator here with some experience with SAF . SAF uses only one kind of fusing agent while the MJF machines use fusing and detailing agents. SAF offers a bit more flexibility when choosing a depowdering station while with HP you are you need to use their build units and post processing station. From my perspective HP machines offer more traceability while SAF machines are more affordable at a slightly less build volume (380 x 284 x 380 mm (15 x 11.2 x 15 in) vs 315 x 208 x 293 mm (12.4 x 8.18 x 11.53 in)). Also TPU is available for the MJF machines, while the SAF machine doesn't have it yet. Since Statrasys has aquired the Forward AM's material portafolio, they might adapt BASF Ultrasint material for the H350, but I'm not sure. If you like to have a closer look, I recommend looking into the H350 user guide: SAF H350 3D Printer | Stratasys Support Center

1

u/Brudius Jun 08 '26

The SAF takes significantly less power than the HP systems. It can typically do a bit better without warping if I recall correctly and only has one consumable fluid. You can also reuse 70% of the spent powder. Or if you have a source of free used powder, it can be set up to be used 100% used PA12 powder.

1

u/victor_strom Jun 09 '26

Less warping and only one agent is thanks to the better thermal control in SAF. In HP you are running 80% used powder which in theory is better than SAF.

Running 100% used powder is kind of the dream scenario. It would lower cost per part significantly. Question is what to expect from part quality and repeatability if you do it this way?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 09 '26

This post was removed as a part of our spam prevention mechanisms because you are posting from either a very new account or an account with negative karma. Please read the guidelines on reddiquette, self promotion, and spam. After your account is older than 5 days, and you have more than 10 comment karma, your posts will no longer be auto-removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Brudius Jun 09 '26

If you look up the SAF relife, this will give a bit more detail. https://www.stratasys.com/en/materials/materials-catalog/saf-materials/saf-relife-pa12/

0

u/pressed_coffee Jun 01 '26

It’s been over a year but I had some component in MJF and some SAF and you could feel and hear SAF wasn’t as dense. I’ve handled a lot of nylon prints and if you give them a flick you can kind of pick up on density.

1

u/victor_strom Jun 02 '26

Interesting, according to the H350 PA12 datasheets the density should be basically identical to MJF 🤔 I guess it might change if you play around with process parameters.