Comparing 3D Printing and Urethane Casting for Small Batch Production

Our team has worked with urethane casting services for over a decade, and we recently introduced this service alongside our 3D printing services. Many clients ask when to use 3D printing and when vacuum or urethane casting makes more sense.

Upside Parts - 3D Printing vs Urethane Casting

This post offers a practical comparison of 3D printing vs urethane casting based on our experience producing high-quality parts for prototyping and small-batch manufacturing.

Understanding when volume matters

One of the simplest factors to consider is quantity. If your project involves fewer than 20 parts, 3D printing is usually the more cost-effective option. Urethane casting requires an investment in tooling such as a silicone mold, which can significantly increase the total cost for low-volume production.

Unless you have specific requirements that make vacuum casting necessary, such as a need for a particular RAL color to be integrated directly into the part without painting, it is more economical to print the parts and post-process them if needed. Sanding, priming, and painting can deliver the desired finish at a lower overall price.

Finding the right fit between 20 and 200 parts

For quantities between 20 and 200 parts, the decision between 3D printing vs vacuum casting depends on several other criteria. If your parts are technical in nature and do not require a high-end finish, or if the geometry is either simple or designed specifically for additive manufacturing with features like undercuts, then 3D printing is often the better choice. It is typically faster and more affordable than casting and delivers comparable mechanical strength for many applications.

The materials available for 3D printing have also expanded significantly. Today, clients can choose from resins with special properties, including flame-retardant formulations and flexible rubber-like textures used in resin 3D printing. This broader range helps 3D printing remain competitive with urethane casting in both performance and application-specific functionality.

Where surface quality makes the difference

However, there are still situations where urethane casting is the preferred solution. For customer-facing products or pre-production runs of consumer devices, surface quality often plays a major role. Vacuum casting is often chosen when the part must meet specific visual or tactile requirements. If you need a consistent matte finish or a particular color built into the part, then you can justify the use of this method. For example, if you need 200 housing units for a medical device that must be smooth, visually clean, and resistant to alcohol-based cleaning, urethane casting offers a consistent appearance and tactile quality that is difficult to achieve with printed parts alone.

Surface finish in urethane casting comes directly from the mold, so the parts require minimal post-processing. By contrast, 3D printing often involves additional steps to prepare the parts for end use, particularly when aesthetics matter. This added labor can affect both cost and lead time.

Considering lead times

In terms of timing, 3D printing is usually faster when you need a small batch quickly. With an array of printers available, it is possible to produce dozens of parts within just a few days. Urethane casting requires more setup time. A master model must be created first, followed by a silicone mold. This preparation adds time to the process, even though the molding itself can then proceed quickly.

Comparing color options

We also see differences in how each method supports color options. Urethane casting allows exact color matching using RAL or Pantone systems. This makes it well-suited for branded or consumer-ready parts that must meet strict visual requirements without the need for painting. In contrast, 3D printing offers fewer standard material colors, and achieving custom shades usually means adding extra finishing work.

Material comparison in urethane casting vs 3D printing

Another factor to weigh in the 3D printing vs urethane casting discussion is material diversity. At this point, both technologies offer a wide selection of materials. There is no clear winner when it comes to variety. The better choice depends on what the part needs to do. We often help clients compare options based on durability, flexibility, temperature resistance, and other critical specifications.

The role of 3D printed molds

In recent years, some manufacturers have started promoting 3D printed molds as a replacement for silicone molds in the casting process. While this method can reduce tooling costs and lead time, it is best suited for parts with relatively simple geometry. In most cases, traditional silicone molds still deliver better surface quality and durability.

Making the right decision between 3D printing vs vacuum casting

For clients trying to decide between vacuum casting vs 3D printing, we recommend focusing on production volume, finish expectations, timeline, and mechanical requirements. Each method has strengths and limitations. In many cases, a hybrid approach makes sense. For example, you might use 3D printing for initial prototypes and shift to urethane casting once the design is validated and you need a larger quantity with a polished appearance.

We are always available to discuss project specifics and help you navigate the trade-offs of urethane casting vs 3D printing. With over twelve years of experience in 3D printing and over ten years in urethane casting, we can guide you toward the best solution for your part, your timeline, and your budget.