Early additive manufacturing could turn digital geometry into a physical part, but preparing the file and obtaining reliable output required specialized work. As printers and materials developed, manufacturers still had to fit parts to machine constraints and coordinate production. The initial opportunity lay in making an unfamiliar production process workable; later factory integration was a separate expansion of that job. MT1
Materialise
Make the file printable, then connect it to production.
What shaped Materialise
- 1 · 1990 to 2018Remove the manual work between CAD and the printerMaterialise’s founder describes a business formed around making additive manufacturing useful in practice. MT1 MT6Speed
- 2 · 2022 to 2025Connect preparation to the rest of the factoryThe 2022 CO-AM account describes an open production platform using APIs and a shared data environment. MT2 MT7End-to-End Workflow
- 3 · 2023 to 2025Keep industrial software performance separate from medical growthMaterialise reported 2025 industrial software revenue of €40.907 million, down 6.8%. MT4 MT7
Arena: Market Conditions Before Materialise
How each step happened
Step 1 of 3 · 1990 to 2018
Remove the manual work between CAD and the printer
Materialise’s founder describes a business formed around making additive manufacturing useful in practice. Nissan’s later account identifies the recurring preparation tasks: dividing oversized parts, modifying wall thickness and arranging parts within a build. The customer reported a reduction in preparation time after adopting Materialise tools. MT1 MT6
The product’s value sat between the design and the machine. A CAD file alone did not complete the operator’s job. Software that handled build-specific geometry and arrangement could save repeated manual work across prototypes, giving the engineering team a reason to adopt it regardless of printer brand.
Nissan’s improvements are reported in a vendor-published case study. They cannot be generalized into an average customer saving.
Rivals Compare Nissan’s prior manual CAD preparation and printer-native arrangement tools with Magics on the same parts. The evidence supports specific workflow benefits, not an advantage over every competing preparation package.
Step 2 of 3 · 2022 to 2025
Connect preparation to the rest of the factory
The 2022 CO-AM account describes an open production platform using APIs and a shared data environment. It accommodates other preparation tools and specialist applications. In 2025, Parts on Demand described replacing fragile custom connections with CO-AM workflows spanning orders, production and Magics. MT2 MT7
The expansion addressed a different bottleneck: getting consistent information from the customer order into a repeatable production process. Existing Magics use offered an account from which to expand. Openness mattered because a factory already had machines and business software that one vendor could not replace at once. The customer’s implementation shows combined use, while its remaining integration work shows the cost of achieving it.
The account describes a substantial change project and unfinished ERP integration. It is evidence of adoption, not proof of frictionless installation or a network effect.
Rivals The concrete alternative is Parts on Demand’s custom tools, folders and middleware. Printer-native software and other MES products remain alternatives; a connection alone does not show that CO-AM is the preferred platform.
Step 3 of 3 · 2023 to 2025
Keep industrial software performance separate from medical growth
Materialise reported 2025 industrial software revenue of €40.907 million, down 6.8%. Medical revenue grew 15.4% to €134.239 million, helping keep total company revenue broadly flat at €267.633 million. The company therefore combined different business trajectories in the same group. MT4
The customer examples establish useful software, but useful software did not automatically translate into growing industrial segment revenue. Manufacturing demand, purchasing cycles and the work of installing a broader platform can constrain commercialization. Medical expansion cannot be used as evidence that the industrial software strategy had already succeeded.
The disclosures do not isolate CO-AM revenue or distinguish all the causes of the software decline. The draft leaves their relative contribution unresolved.
Rivals Compare industrial software revenue and adoption with its own earlier base, and assess medical products separately. Group revenue obscures the difference between these businesses.
Key dates
- 1990Production experience provides the setting for additive-manufacturing software. MT1
- 2018A customer describes automating build-preparation tasks. MT6
- 2022Materialise extends toward connected production with an open platform. MT2
- 2025A customer connects orders, manufacturing execution and preparation. MT7
- 2025Industrial software revenue falls while medical revenue grows. MT4
Sources
Oldest first.
- MT6 Nissan Motor data preparation. Customer account published by vendor
- MT1 30 Years of Materialise: interview with Fried Vancraen. Founder interview
- MT2 Fried Vancraen on CO-AM. Founder interview
- MT7 Parts on Demand connects production with CO-AM. Customer account published by vendor
- MT4 Materialise fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. Primary disclosure
- MT8 MTLS quote and share count. Market data