Once again we take a look at the valuations of the major 3D printing companies over the past week.
Publicly traded companies are required to post their financial reports, as well as appear on stock markets. From there we can calculate the total value of their company by multiplying the current stock price by the number of outstanding shares. This number is the market capitalization, and represents the current valuation of the company.
It’s a great number of compare companies, as the market capitalization can be leveraged to provide more capabilities for the company. Shares could, for example, be used as collateral for a loan. That and similar maneuvers could generate cash with which the company might undertake new projects.
In other words, “market cap,” or as commonly referred to, is vitally significant.
One might hold the belief that it’s not critical to keep a close eye on these firms on a weekly basis since their worth comes to fruition only when their shares are liquidated. Nonetheless, companies sometimes experience occurrences that provoke a surge or decline in their value, and this weekly article serves as a tracker for such events.
Keep in mind that not every prominent 3D printing company is encompassed in this list. A considerable number of 3D printing corporations are private entities and, as such, their actual scale is not publicly disclosed; EOS for example. In other cases, like HP or Siemens, 3D printing is just a fragment of a much larger corporation, making the precise size of their 3D printing operations unknown.
Now, let’s delve into exploring the 3D printing companies that made the cut this week.
3D Printing Leaderboard
RANK | COMPANY | CAP | CHG |
1 | Protolabs | 892 | +65 |
2 | Xometry | 764 | -44 |
3 | Stratasys | 729 | -49 |
4 | Nano Dimension | 628 | -23 |
5 | 3D Systems | 560 | -25 |
6 | Materialise | 330 | -6 |
7 | Velo3D | 272 | +7 |
8 | Desktop Metal | 252 | -63 |
9 | Markforged | 157 | +7 |
10 | FATHOM | 32 | +3 |
11 | Massivit | 26 | 0 |
12 | Freemelt | 19 | +0 |
13 | Steakholder Foods | 14 | -1 |
14 | Shapeways | 13 | -2 |
15 | AML3D | 13 | +2 |
16 | voxeljet | 11 | -0 |
17 | Titomic | 7 | +0 |
18 | Sygnis | 6 | +0 |
19 | Aurora Labs | 4 | -0 |
20 | Sigma Additive Solutions | 3 | +0 |
TOTAL | 4,730 | -129 |
This week saw a return to “normal” after last week’s blockbuster rise in valuations. Instead of double-digit percentage rises, we saw a dip of a couple of percent on the leaderboard overall. That’s contrary to the market this week, which was generally up a percent or so. It may be that last week’s rise was “too much”, and this week we’ve seen a correction.
One of the biggest gainers of the week was FATHOM, which rose a startling ten percent on the week. This follows a switch in leadership at the company, which evidently has boosted investor confidence.
Two notable companies experienced significant devaluations this week. Desktop Metal, which had its proposed merger with Stratasys vetoed several weeks ago, is one of them. The negative reaction from investors may be due to the lack of a dramatic new strategy to replace the merger approach.
Despite the semi-positive financial results that Desktop Metal released on Friday, the company’s revenue declined year on year in the third quarter. They attributed this drop to overall market conditions. However, they reported the completion of a major expense savings project worth US$100M, ahead of schedule. Nevertheless, the company’s valuation saw a 20% drop this week according to investors.
Shapeways’ valuation dipped 14% ahead of their financial announcement next week. Investors appear to be pessimistic about the upcoming release. However, the situation could shift, necessitating close monitoring next week.
Protolabs continues to lead the pack after achieving notably positive financial results. It was the first time the company topped the leaderboard, and they could retain their position for some time given the performance of other 3D companies. They expanded their lead this week with a nearly eight percent increase.
What is the current state of the three major players that were recently in a tussle for taking over Stratasys?
This week, all the three contenders, namely Stratasys, 3D Systems and Nano Dimension, witnessed a dip in their shares ranging from 3 to 6 percent, showing a live representation of the overall trend in the leaderboard. Stratasys still dominates with a 30% larger share than 3D Systems.
In a surprising turn of events, one of our anticipated entrants into the market is no longer in contention. Essentium has declared plans to be taken over by Nexa3D. Nexa3D is a private entity and hence does not feature in the leaderboard. While it might opt for an IPO in the future, no official announcements have been made in this regard yet.
Upcoming Changes
One firm I’ve started keeping tabs on is ICON, a construction 3D printer manufacturer based in Texas. This privately-held firm has managed to amass an impressive amount of funding, nearly half a billion dollars. At such a scale, it’s likely they’ll be contemplating transitioning to public markets, which would certainly put them at, or near the top of our leaderboard.
Another potential contender for going public is VulcanForms, a manufacturing service specializing in an advanced metal 3D printing process. They currently hold a private valuation of over US$1B, a figure that could rise even further if they decide to go public.
If you know of any other 3D print companies that are publicly-traded and should be on our leaderboard, we’d love to hear from you!
Others In The Industry
While we’ve been keeping tabs on the publicly traded companies, it’s important to remember the existence of numerous private enterprises that aren’t listed on any stock exchange. These privately-owned companies probably hold considerable value, the exact extent of which is not easily gauged at any given moment. Large entities suspected to carry significant value include EOS, Carbon, and Formlabs.
Maybe someday, a few of these will secure spots on our primary players’ roster.
Related Companies
Lastly, a number of companies are significantly involved in the 3D printing industry, however, this comprises only a minuscule fraction of their overall operations. Hence, it’s not justifiable to include them in the above lists, as their real contributions and interests in the 3D printing sphere are vaguely known.
“Why did the 3D printer go to therapy? Because it had too many layers of unresolved issues!”
0 Comments