Four alloys appear most often in the portfolios of metal AM system manufacturers: 316L stainless steel, 17-4PH precipitation hardening steel, the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V and 18Ni300 maraging steel, also known as MS1. Each represents a different trade-off between strength and ductility.
Numbers from different manufacturers' datasheets cannot be compared directly, because specimen orientation, heat treatment and test standard differ. So I compared only what is comparable, and gave the most weight to independent verification.
The heat treatment condition changes the result more than the choice of manufacturer. For 18Ni300, aging raises tensile strength by about 70 percent. For Ti-6Al-4V, HIP lowers strength but significantly increases elongation.
No number in this article is a design value. Its purpose is to help you know which questions to ask your supplier.
Why these four alloys
These four alloys are the best researched, have the most industrial references and cover four different behavior profiles. 316L is soft and ductile, 17-4PH moderately strong with corrosion resistance, Ti-6Al-4V light and strong, and 18Ni300 extremely strong after aging. Whoever understands these four understands the range of what metal additive manufacturing offers today.
Still, none of them is offered by every single manufacturer. Almost everyone offers 316L and Ti-6Al-4V, while 17-4PH and 18Ni300 are not among the featured materials of some manufacturers.
How to read the tables
Tensile strength is the highest stress a specimen withstands before it breaks. Yield strength is the stress beyond which deformation becomes permanent. Elongation shows how much a specimen stretches before it breaks, and measures ductility.
- As-built is the condition right after printing, without heat treatment.
- Stress-relief relieves residual stresses at a moderate temperature.
- Annealed means heated to homogenize the structure.
- Solution annealed means annealed at a high temperature to dissolve alloying elements.
- Aging is the treatment through which 17-4PH and 18Ni300 reach full strength.
- HIP, hot isostatic pressing, applies high temperature and gas pressure at the same time, closes internal pores and makes properties uniform in all directions.
H and XY mean specimens printed horizontally, V and Z vertically. In metal printing, vertical specimens usually have lower strength, because the load goes across the layers.
Why there is no single official number
ASTM F3122, the guide for evaluating mechanical properties of metal AM materials, lists what drives differences in results: anisotropy, material preparation, porosity, specimen preparation, environment and test speed. The standard asks for these factors to be recorded, not for the numbers to be artificially equalized. ISO/ASTM 52921 only solves terminology, it defines exactly what the orientation labels mean, so that manufacturers are at least comparable in language.
The aerospace industry uses statistical values following the MMPDS methodology. B-basis is the value that 90 percent of the material will exceed, and A-basis the value that 99 percent will exceed, both with 95 percent confidence. That requires hundreds of raw measurements, not a mean with deviation from a datasheet. The closest thing to real normalization is the NIST AM-Bench program, where the same specimens are tested on several machines under the same protocol.
So in this review I did what is realistically possible. I compare only the same condition and the same orientation, I mark everything else as context, and I highlight independent verification as the strongest evidence. Manufacturers that offer an alloy but do not publish numbers, or whose numbers I did not find in public sources, are listed below each table.
Transparency. 3D Republika, a company I co-own, is the regional distributor of BLT and Meltio equipment. I do not take part in equipment sales, but because of this I have access to the complete documentation of these two manufacturers. That is exactly why I compared them with independent sources in this review. The same space in the tables is open to every other manufacturer and representative, more on that at the end of the article.
Tensile strength versus elongation
316L, stainless steel for corrosion resistance and ductility
316L is naturally very ductile, also in additive manufacturing. For horizontal specimens in the as-built condition, elongation is usually between 35 and 45 percent, and even higher for vertical specimens and after heat treatment. Values well below 30 percent signal that something is wrong with the process, porosity for example, not with the material.
316L, tensile strength by source
| Manufacturer or source | Condition | Orientation | Tensile strength (MPa) | Yield strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS (M280/M290) | As-built | XY / Z | 640±50 / 540±55 | 530±60 / 470±90 | 40±15 / 50±20 |
| Nikon SLM Solutions (50 µm layer) | As-built | H / V | 675 / 605 | 560 / 500 | 37 / 45 |
| Nikon SLM Solutions (30 µm layer) | As-built | H / V | 670 / 605 | 570 / 520 | 41 / 45 |
| Colibrium Additive (M Line, 400 W, 50 µm) | As-built | H / V | 710 / 655 | 605 / 545 | 37.5 / 44.5 |
| Colibrium Additive | Stress-relief (899°C/1h) | H / V | 675 / 625 | 440 / 415 | 43.5 / 51.5 |
| Colibrium Additive | Solution annealed (1066°C/1h) | H / V | 645 / 605 | 385 / 375 | 48.5 / 57.5 |
| Farsoon, minimum values | As-built / heat treated | not stated | ≥650 / ≥600 | ≥550 / ≥400 | ≥35 / ≥40 |
| Xact Metal (XM200G) | As-built | XY / Z | 617 / 572 | 465 / 438 | 43 / 48 |
| BLT (A series), datasheet | As-built | H / V | 690±20 / 570±20 | 550±20 / 460±20 | 45±5 / 65±5 |
| BLT (A series), datasheet | Heat treated (1050°C/2h, Ar) | H / V | 640±20 / 560±20 | 380±20 / 340±20 | 50±5 / 75±5 |
| Institut Milanović, independent verification of BLT specimens | Heat treated | V | 555 | 356 | 78.62 |
| Meltio (DED, wire) | As-built | XZ | 655±11 | 347±28 | 41±4 |
| Meltio (DED, wire) | Heat treated | XZ | 547±8 | 253±17 | 62±2 |
| Optomec (LENS, DED) | As-built | not stated | 799 | 500 | 50 |
| Academic study, 2024, 1.5 and 4 mm specimens | As-built | 606 to 620 | 538 to 551 | 70 to 74 | |
| Academic study, parameter optimization, 2024 | As-built | 763 | |||
| Academic study, 2025 | As-built | 728 | 590 | 56 | |
| Academic study on HIP | As-built, before HIP | 650 | 570 | 30 to 34 | |
| Same study | HIP | 290 to 325 | 47.8 to 48.5 |
Renishaw, 3D Systems and TRUMPF have datasheets for 316L, but I did not find the numbers in publicly available sources. One Click Metal offers 316L without published numbers. For HBD, SISMA, Eplus3D, InssTek and DMG Mori, public tensile data does not exist.
The BLT datasheet and the independent verification by Institut Milanović match within the expected scatter. The institute tested vertical specimens, the least favorable orientation, on purpose. It is rare in this industry to find both a declared and an externally verified value for the same material on the same machine.
An independent academic study gives 70 to 74 percent elongation already in the as-built condition, close to the BLT value after heat treatment. This confirms that 316L from powder bed fusion is naturally ductile even before treatment.
The HIP study shows a pattern we will also see with Ti-6Al-4V. HIP raises elongation to almost 48 percent, but yield strength drops from 570 to about 300 MPa. The same trade-off between strength and ductility, just in a different alloy.
Application example. A heat exchanger with internal conformal channels. The channel geometry cannot be made by conventional machining, and corrosion resistance in contact with the coolant justifies the choice of 316L.
17-4PH, strength after aging
For 17-4PH, the difference between the as-built and aged condition is not cosmetic. Aging raises tensile strength from about 1050 to about 1365 MPa. For a part like an impeller in the oil and gas industry, that is the difference between a semi-finished product and a part that can go into service.
17-4PH, tensile strength by source
| Manufacturer or source | Condition | Orientation | Tensile strength (MPa) | Yield strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS (M300-4) | As-built | V / H | 1052 / 1015 | 947 / 941 | 15.7 / 16.8 |
| EOS (M300-4) | Heat treated (solution annealing and aging) | V / H | 1371 / 1349 | 1240 / 1207 | 10.5 / 10.7 |
| EOS IndustryLine (M290) | Vacuum aged, 460°C | XY, combined | 1358 | 1262 | 13.8 |
| Meltio (DED, wire) | As-built | XZ | 1017±15 | 815±17 | 14 |
| Meltio (DED, wire) | Heat treated | XZ | 1391±7 | 1243±8 | 10±3 |
| Academic study, dual laser scanning, 2024 | As-built, repeated path | 1222.8±30.5 | 955.2±26.8 | 12.02 | |
| Same study | As-built, perpendicular path | 1193.4±18.2 | 722.9±21.9 | ||
| Academic study, parameter optimization, 2025 | Aging 550°C/240 min | 1013 |
Colibrium Additive and Xact Metal have datasheets for 17-4PH, but I did not find the numbers in publicly available sources. 3D Systems, TRUMPF and One Click Metal support 17-4PH without published numbers. For Nikon SLM, Renishaw, Velo3D and AddUp, 17-4PH is not among the featured materials. For BLT, HBD, SISMA, Farsoon, Eplus3D, InssTek, Optomec and DMG Mori, public data does not exist.
Academic literature shows that the as-printed structure of 17-4PH can be almost fully martensitic or ferritic, depending on the chromium to nickel ratio in the powder. This explains part of the differences between manufacturers, and shows that it is not only a matter of machine parameters, but also of powder chemistry. One 2024 study reports about 15 percent higher tensile strength than rolled material after identical heat treatment.
For a rotating part under load, sizing is more often driven by fatigue than by static tensile strength. No commercial source in this review publishes fatigue curves for 17-4PH. If this matters to you, ask your supplier for them or plan your own testing.
Ti-6Al-4V, light and strong, with one serious caveat
For a part like a secondary bracket in an aircraft structure, the datasheet number tells you whether the material has potential for that application, not whether it is qualified for it. The aerospace industry does not design on typical values, but on A-basis or B-basis values derived from hundreds of specimens.
Ti-6Al-4V, tensile strength by source
| Manufacturer or source | Condition | Orientation | Tensile strength (MPa) | Yield strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS (Ti64ELI) | As-built | XY / Z | 1260±40 / 1250±50 | 1125±65 / 1130±75 | 7 / 9 |
| EOS (M290) | Annealed 800°C/2h, Ar | H / V | 1055 / 1075 | 945 / 965 | 13 / 14 |
| EOS (M300-4) | Heat treated | H / V | 1125 / 1120 | 1017 / 1032 | 12.7 / 14.6 |
| Renishaw (60 µm layer, Gr23) | Annealed 800°C/4h | XY / Z | 1033 / 1065 | 938 / 956 | 16 / 18 |
| Renishaw (30 µm layer, Gr23) | Annealed | XY / Z | 1054 / 1018 | 990 / 908 | 17 / 20 |
| Velo3D (Sapphire) and AddUp (FormUp), ELI, identical published data | As-built | XY / Z | 1265±7 / 1252±6 | 1104±7 / 1126±8 | 11 / 10 |
| Velo3D and AddUp | Stress-relief | XY / Z | 1080±12 / 1086±6 | 991±9 / 1003±7 | 12 / 14 |
| Velo3D | HIP (899°C) | XY / Z | 911±5 / 911±5 | 816 / 812 | 19 / 19 |
| Eplus3D, condition not stated | Typical values | XY / Z | 1200±50 / 1180±50 | 1100±50 / 1080±50 | 10±2 |
| Additive Industries (MetalFab) | As-built / heat treated | XY and XZ | 1230 / 1020 | ||
| Meltio (DED, wire) | Aged | XZ | 1208±49 | 980±2 | 10±5 |
| Optomec (LENS, DED) | As-built | not stated | 1077 | 973 | 11 |
| Academic study, ELI, 2021 | Stress-relief 670°C/5h | 1190 | 1141 | 6.9 | |
| Same study | HIP 920°C/2h/100 MPa | 1003 | 928 | 16.1 | |
| Academic study, HIP, mean of three treatments | HIP | 1080 to 1220 | 1030 to 1190 | 8.7 to 16.7 | |
| Review paper, 2025 | As-built | 1148 to 1257 | 1066 to 1150 | 10.9 to 11.1 | |
| Academic study, EOS M290 | As-built, horizontal | 1261 | 10.2 |
Nikon SLM Solutions, 3D Systems, Colibrium Additive and Farsoon have datasheets for Ti-6Al-4V, but I did not find the numbers in publicly available sources. For BLT, HBD, SISMA, One Click Metal, InssTek and DMG Mori, public data does not exist.
The most important finding for this alloy is HIP as a third condition. In a 2021 study, elongation after HIP rises from 6.9 to 16.1 percent and properties become the same in all directions, while tensile strength drops from 1190 to 1003 MPa. Velo3D publishes the same pattern, 911 MPa and 19 percent elongation. For demanding applications, in aerospace and in implants, HIP is the treatment actually used, not just annealing. I wrote about titanium in surgery in Biocompatible Materials and Real Surgical Applications: What "Biocompatible" Actually Means, and Where 3D Printing Really Stands Today.
Velo3D and AddUp publish identical numbers for Ti-6Al-4V ELI, so I show them in the table as one source.
Besides BLT, EOS is the only manufacturer in this review with independent verification on a named machine. An academic study on an EOS M290 gives a tensile strength of 1261 MPa and 10.2 percent elongation in the as-built horizontal condition. That is almost identical to the EOS value of 1260±40 MPa, and elongation is even slightly better than the EOS range.
18Ni300 and MS1, extreme strength after aging
For 18Ni300, the difference between the as-built and aged condition is the largest of all four alloys. Tensile strength rises from about 1200 to about 2065 MPa, and hardness, according to the BLT datasheet, from 35 to 52 HRC. For a plastic injection mold with conformal cooling, it is exactly this hardness that determines wear resistance, so aging is not an option but a mandatory step.
18Ni300 and MS1, tensile strength by source
| Manufacturer or source | Condition | Orientation | Tensile strength (MPa) | Yield strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS (M290) | Heat treated (solution annealing and aging 490°C/6h) | H / V | 2080 / 2080 | 2010 / 2000 | 4 / 4 |
| EOS (M400-4) | As-built | H / V | 1200 / 1200 | 1020 / 1050 | 13 / 11 |
| EOS (M400-4) | Heat treated | H / V | 2060 / 2080 | 1990 / 2010 | 4 / 3 |
| EOS (M300-4) | As-built | H / V | 1200 / 1100 | 980 / 860 | 13 / 12 |
| EOS (M300-4) | Heat treated | H / V | 2120 / 2110 | 2040 / 1990 | 4 / 3 |
| Additive Industries (1.2709) | As-built / aged | XY and XZ | 1237 / 2032 | ||
| BLT (A series), datasheet | As-built | H / V | 1170±20 / 1050±20 | 1050±20 / 920±20 | 15±3 / 12±3 |
| BLT (A series), datasheet | Aging 490°C/6h | H / V | 1980±20 / 1900±20 | 1900±20 / 1850±20 | 7±2 / 7±2 |
| Institut Milanović, independent verification of BLT specimens | Aged | V | 1932 | 1846 | 6.95 |
| Academic study, 2025 | Solution annealing 820°C/2h and aging 490°C/7h | 2068 | 4.5 | ||
| Academic study, 2021 | Direct aging | 1978±38 | 7.36 |
Colibrium Additive has a datasheet for 18Ni300, but I did not find the numbers in publicly available sources. One Click Metal offers this alloy without published numbers. For Nikon SLM, Renishaw, 3D Systems, TRUMPF, Velo3D and AddUp, maraging steel is not among the featured materials or the data is not public. For SISMA, Farsoon, Eplus3D, InssTek, DMG Mori and Optomec, public data does not exist. Meltio does not offer 18Ni300; H11 tool steel plays a similar role in its portfolio.
The BLT and Institut Milanović pair is not an isolated case. A 2021 academic study gives 1978 MPa and 7.36 percent elongation, almost the same as BLT. A 2025 study gives 2068 MPa, between the BLT value and the upper end of the EOS values. Three independent sources, three different institutions, the same range.
Elongation after aging is about 4 percent for EOS, and between 4.5 and 7.4 percent for BLT and both academic studies. The difference also depends on the aging treatment, so it is worth checking if the tool takes impact loads.
If you need just one number per alloy
This is not a design value, neither A-basis nor B-basis. It is the median of all concrete values from the tables above, useful only for quick orientation on the order of magnitude.
The rules are simple. Each published value is one data point, horizontal and vertical separately. For ranges I took the midpoint. Guaranteed minimum values and values without a stated condition were not counted, and identical data published by two manufacturers was counted only once.
| Alloy | Condition | Tensile strength (MPa), indicative | Range in sources (MPa) | Elongation (%), indicative | Data points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 316L | As-built | ~655 | 540 to 799 | ~45 | 18 |
| 316L | Heat treated | ~615 | 547 to 675 | ~55 | 8 |
| 17-4PH | As-built | ~1050 | 1015 to 1223 | ~15 | 5 |
| 17-4PH | Heat treated | ~1365 | 1349 to 1391 | ~11 | 4 |
| Ti-6Al-4V | As-built | ~1250 | 1077 to 1265 | ~10 | 8 |
| Ti-6Al-4V | Annealed or stress-relief | ~1075 | 1018 to 1208 | ~14 | 13 |
| Ti-6Al-4V | HIP | ~960 | 911 to 1150 | ~18 | 4 |
| 18Ni300 / MS1 | As-built | ~1200 | 1050 to 1237 | ~12.5 | 7 |
| 18Ni300 / MS1 | Aged | ~2065 | 1900 to 2120 | ~4 | 12 |
Rows with fewer than five data points, 17-4PH after heat treatment and Ti-6Al-4V after HIP, are the most likely to change as more sources appear.
Questions to ask your supplier
Before you compare two quotes or two datasheets, ask for answers to these questions.
- In which orientation were the specimens printed, and are there values for the vertical direction?
- In which condition were the specimens tested, and what is the exact heat treatment, temperature, time and atmosphere?
- Which standard was used for testing, ASTM E8 or ISO 6892-1, and were the specimens machined?
- How many specimens were tested, and what is the scatter of the results?
- On which machine, with which layer thickness and which parameter set?
- Which powder batch was used, and what share of the powder was recycled?
- Who did the testing, an in-house lab or an independent one?
- If the part takes cyclic loads, is there fatigue data?
These same answers are the basis of qualification. The whole process is described in What Process Qualification Actually Looks Like and How an individual component is qualified in production. Why the manufacturer's parameters are a good baseline but don't know your geometry, I explained in Why factory profiles are not enough for serious work. A broader framework for choosing a material is in How to choose the right material without guessing, and for a first check of a metal part's geometry you can use the SLM DFAM Checker.
What has not been verified yet
For several manufacturers, datasheets exist, but I did not find the numbers in public sources. These are Renishaw, 3D Systems and TRUMPF for 316L, Colibrium Additive for all four alloys, Xact Metal for 17-4PH, and Nikon SLM Solutions, 3D Systems and Farsoon for Ti-6Al-4V.
There are academic papers on Renishaw machines and on Nikon SLM Solutions powder, but without values comparable to the datasheets. For Colibrium Additive, Velo3D, AddUp, Xact Metal and Farsoon, I did not find papers that name the machine together with comparable mechanical values. That does not mean they don't exist.
An open invitation to manufacturers and representatives
This review is a living document and will stay that way. I openly invite all equipment manufacturers and all regional representatives to send me the independent test results they have access to, for any of these four alloys. Everything I receive will go into the tables, the analysis and the medians, under the same rules that apply to BLT and Meltio.
For a result to enter the comparison, the following must be known:
- the machine and parameter set,
- the condition and exact heat treatment,
- the specimen orientation,
- the test standard and number of specimens,
- the laboratory that did the testing.
Manufacturer datasheets are also welcome, but in the tables I mark them as declared values. Independent verification still carries the most weight, whoever provides it. You can send the material through the contact page.
Conclusion
Four alloys, four different trade-offs between strength and ductility, and four different levels of confidence in the available data. 316L and 18Ni300 have the strongest independent verification in this review, through the BLT and Institut Milanović pair and the academic literature that agrees with it. For Ti-6Al-4V, the key question is which heat treatment condition is relevant for your application, because the as-built, annealed and HIP conditions differ significantly. 17-4PH has the least public fatigue data, even though it is often chosen precisely for rotating parts.
No number in this article replaces process qualification on a specific machine, for a specific part.
Frequently asked questions
Can I directly compare numbers from different datasheets? Only when specimen orientation and heat treatment condition are the same. Comparing one manufacturer's as-built value with another's heat-treated value is a common source of wrong conclusions.
Why do BLT and Institut Milanović match? Institut Milanović independently tested specimens printed on a BLT machine, with the same material, and got results within the expected scatter compared to the BLT datasheet. That is a rare case of external verification in this industry.
Is HIP mandatory for Ti-6Al-4V in aerospace? Not universally, but it is common when high ductility and the same properties in all directions are required. Design then relies on A-basis or B-basis values anyway, not on typical datasheet values.
Why do some manufacturers have no numbers in the tables? For two reasons. Either the manufacturer does not publish mechanical data for that alloy, or a datasheet exists but the numbers are not publicly available. The article deliberately keeps these two cases apart.
How can my data be included in this review? Send an independent test result with a known machine, condition, orientation, standard and number of specimens. I include it under the same rules for all manufacturers and representatives.
Do DED and powder bed fusion give the same properties? No. The same alloy has a different structure and different properties depending on the technology and heat treatment. That is why DED sources are marked separately in the tables.
Sources
Standards and methodology - ASTM F3122, Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials Made via Additive Manufacturing Processes, https://store.astm.org/f3122-14r22.html - ISO/ASTM 52921, terminology for coordinate systems and test methodologies in additive manufacturing - MMPDS, Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization, https://www.mmpds.org/ - NIST AM-Bench, https://www.nist.gov/ambench
Manufacturer datasheets - EOS, datasheets for 316L, 17-4PH (M300-4 and IndustryLine M290), Ti64 and Ti64ELI, MS1 - Nikon SLM Solutions, datasheet for 316L - Colibrium Additive, datasheet for 316L - Renishaw, datasheet for Ti6Al4V Gr23 - Velo3D and AddUp, datasheets for Ti-6Al-4V ELI, https://addupsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Ti-6-4-ELI-grade-23-SV-Materials-Data-Sheet.pdf - Xact Metal, Farsoon, Eplus3D, Additive Industries, Optomec, datasheets - BLT, datasheet for BLT-316L and BLT-18Ni300, November 2023, ASTM E8/E8M, 30 specimens per data point - Meltio, Materials Handbook v1.0, 2023, ISO 6892-1, XZ orientation
Independent verification - Institut Milanović, test report for BLT-316L and BLT-18Ni300 after heat treatment, February 2025
Academic literature - 316L, as-built, 1.5 and 4 mm specimens, 2024, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2319032 - 316L, parameter optimization with a neural network, 2024, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11434083/ - 316L, temperature dependent properties, 2025, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921509325001029 - 316L, effect of HIP, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7579382/ - 17-4PH, dual laser scanning, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385250330 - 17-4PH, comparison with rolled material, 2024, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40964-024-00837-0 - 17-4PH, parameter and aging optimization, 2025, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00170-025-16793-0 - 17-4PH, effect of powder chemistry on structure, 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214860421003390 - Ti-6Al-4V ELI, stress-relief versus HIP, Metals 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/met11111671 - Ti-6Al-4V, HIP, non-spherical powder, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8199647/ - Ti-6Al-4V, process window review, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392364226 - Ti-6Al-4V, DMLS, strain analysis with DIC, Materials 2020, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/15/3398 - 18Ni300, effect of heat treatment, Materials 2025, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18102284 - 18Ni300, direct aging, 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921509321015987 - 18Ni300, aging behaviour, Metals 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/met6090218