3D Printing

Has Nano Dimension Been Swallowed by the Company It Acquired?

Posted on by Techtime

[Photo: A Markforged printer. Source: Markforged]

By Yochai Schweiger

During Nano Dimension’s earnings call last Thursday, following the publication of its Q3 2025 results, the company’s new CEO, David Stehlin, mentioned the name Nano Dimension exactly once — in the formal opening line. From that moment on, the discussion revolved almost exclusively around the commercial activity and product lines of Markforged, the U.S. 3D-printer manufacturer Nano Dimension acquired and finalized the merger with a few months ago. Flagship FX10 and FX20 printers, the Digital Forge platform, use cases in defense, aerospace, automotive and industrial sectors — these dominated the call, while Nano’s original business disappeared almost entirely from the agenda.

The absence of any reference to Nano’s historical core operations stood out sharply. Its 3D printed-electronics technology, the DragonFly printer, and the broader focus on additive electronics — all central to the company’s identity for years — were not mentioned once.

In its early years, Nano Dimension issued press releases for nearly every DragonFly sale. But for several years now it has not announced any such deals, and the brand that once represented its technological edge has effectively vanished. Sales volumes in that legacy business can now be inferred only indirectly. After the Markforged acquisition, the company even changed its business description from “additive manufacturing of advanced electronics” to “digital manufacturing solutions.” Earlier in 2024, Nano Dimension also carried out a substantial workforce reduction in Israel.

Control Shifts From Nano Dimension to Markforged

This transition is visible not only in the narrative but also in senior leadership. Management gravity has shifted outward from Israel, and control appears to have moved from Nano’s leadership to Markforged’s.

Stehlin, the new CEO, comes from the telecom sector rather than the 3D-printing industry. His appointment surprised investors, as he replaced Ofir Baharav — a veteran of Israel’s additive-manufacturing sector via XJet — who was dismissed after just a few months in the role. Financial leadership has similarly shifted: Nano’s CFO, Assaf Zipori, has departed and was replaced by Markforged’s CFO, John Brenton.

A Loss-Making Company Taps Into Nano Dimension’s Cash Pile

Nano Dimension acquired Markforged in April 2025 for approximately $116 million. Founded in 2013 and based in Waltham, Massachusetts, Markforged employs several hundred people and specializes in industrial 3D printing of metals and composites for aerospace, automotive and industrial equipment sectors. In 2024 it generated $85.1 million in revenue but posted a net loss of $85.6 million, weighed down by $127.7 million in operating expenses.

The merger — combining a larger, higher-revenue but deeply loss-making Markforged with the smaller but cash-rich Nano Dimension — has effectively created a new company. This is clearly reflected in the financial structure shown in the first report of the combined entity: revenues surged, but profitability deteriorated sharply.

The numbers are stark. Q3 revenue jumped to $26.9 million — up 81% year-over-year — but $17.5 million of that came from Markforged. Without the acquisition, Nano’s legacy revenue dropped to just $9.4 million, a 37% decline. The message is clear: nearly all growth is coming from the acquired business, while printed-electronics revenues have shrunk to a secondary segment.

As a consequence, adjusted gross margin eroded from 50.5% to 47.4%. Unadjusted gross margin — which includes inventory charges, integration costs and accounting impacts related to the Markforged deal — fell far more sharply, from 48% to around 30%, signaling heavy one-time (and likely multiquarter) burdens.

Bottom line: if Nano Dimension lost $9.9 million in Q3 2024, the latest quarter ended with a net loss of $29.5 million. With Markforged now consolidated, Nano has also added more than $100 million in annual fixed operating expenses. Quarterly operating costs surged to roughly $29.2 million, an increase of $8–10 million per quarter versus Nano’s pre-merger expense profile.

From Markforged’s perspective, the deal is close to ideal. The company is now housed inside a cash-rich entity holding more than half a billion dollars — financial oxygen it lacked as a standalone business. Markforged has effectively joined a firm capable of funding its loss trajectory and long investment cycles, giving its product roadmap a significantly more stable foundation.

The 3D-Printing Industry’s Vicious Circle

Viewed in a broader context, the Nano–Markforged merger mirrors a familiar pattern in the 3D-printing sector. For more than a decade, the industry has oscillated between sky-high expectations and slow-moving commercial reality: expensive R&D, long sales cycles for industrial customers, and the need for heavy service and sales infrastructures. Many companies attempted to solve the problem through acquisitions — stitching together broader “platforms” in hopes of achieving operational scale and technological synergy. In practice, these moves often produced integration challenges, cost inflation and financial structures mismatched to market size.

Nano Dimension launched its acquisition strategy in 2022 after raising roughly $1 billion in cash, becoming one of the most capital-rich players in the space. Over the next two years it acquired five to six companies in 3D printing and electronic manufacturing. Most of these efforts ultimately failed: in recent quarters, Nano has shut down or significantly downsized most of the acquired operations. The clearest example is Desktop Metal — a deal in which Nano bore part of the cost burden — which ended in bankruptcy and was classified as a discontinued operation. Against this backdrop, Markforged seemed like the more sensible acquisition: a larger company with meaningful revenue and a global customer base. Yet the latest results show that Markforged also brings with it the industry’s characteristic traits: chronic unprofitability and heavy cost structures.

Nano Dimension had hoped to be the company that breaks this cycle — leveraging its cash reserves and its unique printed-electronics technology to reach profitability where many competitors failed. But judging from the latest report and the accompanying earnings call, the company is now in a transition period in which its historical core is shrinking, the acquired business dominates, and the organizational identity is shifting.

The process is still unfolding — but the question already hangs in the air:
Did Nano Dimension acquire Markforged, or has the acquired company become so dominant that it’s no longer clear who actually absorbed whom?

Nano Dimension Acquires NanoFabrica for $55 million

Posted on by Techtime

Above: Miniature structure created by NanoFabrica’s Tera 250 machine

In a surprising  move to expand its footprint in the market of additive manufaturing for the Electronics industry, Nano Dimension announced that it has signed and closed a definitive agreement to acquire NanoFabrica for $54.9-$59.4 million. Out of that, between $23 million to $27.5 million will be paid in cash (depending upon certain milestones), and approximately $32 million was paid in American Depositary Shares (ADSs) of Nano Dimension.

The Tel aviv based NanoFabrica has developed a 3D Printing technology for miniature parts. Its Tera 250 machine is capable of producing thousands mm-size parts in a single run and in a resolution of down to 1 micron. Nano Dimension’s produce a PCB printer for the Electronics industry. It uses nanoparticle ink to enable in-house rapid prototyping of professional, multi-layer printed circuit boards (PCBs) and passive devices such as resistors, capcitors, inductors and antennas.

High-end components in a digital format

NanoFabrica’s scientists and engineers are expected to now join Nano Dimension and continue to be led by NanoFabrica’s two founders: Dr. Jon Donner and Eyal Shelef. Yoav Stern, Chief Executive Officer of Nano Dimension, stated, “Our mutual vision is to merge the technologies of our micro-electronic 3D-fabrications machines for Hi-PEDs (Hi-Performance Electronic Devices) with NanoFabrica’s micro-mechanic 3D printing.

“The future of Hi-PEDs and miniaturized high-performance printed circuit boards (PCBs) is interlaced with micro-mechanical printing applications. Eventually, the end goal is to reach a capability for maintaining an inventory of high-end PCB devices, micro-mechanical parts and Hi-PEDs in digital form: print them as you need them, where you need them, only the quantity you need, in the best quality at competitive prices.”

Stratasys is looking for Production Technologies

Posted on by Techtime

Stratasys plans to make a strategic move and shift its focus from prototyping-oriented technologies into full scale production. “Stratasys today leads the industry with the largest share in material extrusion and material jetting through our FDM and PolyJet technologies,” said the CEO Yoav Zeif (pictured above), during a conference call after the company had reported disappointing Q2 2020 results.

“However, these two technologies currently address only about one-third of the total additive manufacturing hardware opportunity. Further, their growth rates have slowed in comparison to the growth rates of other technologies that suit the needs of faster growing applications, especially in production.” Stratasys ended the quarter with a net loss of $28 million, joining a loss of $21.7 million in the first quarter – a total of $50 million in H1 2020.

COVID-19 hit the entire 3D Printing Market

This weakness characterizes the entire 3D printing market: Stratasys’s main competitor, 3D Systems, also reported a double-digit decline in revenue and losses in the last two quarters. Among other things, this is the result of COVID-19 crisis that led to a downsizing of many equipment purchasing plans in key industries around the world.

“We have already started the journey into true manufacturing,” added Zeif. “There are over 100,000 Polymer parts flying today that have been printed on Stratasys systems. Therefore, to help us win in these faster growing areas, we will invest organically and inorganically in new Polymer technologies such as PBM, VAT Photopolymerization and others.”

In PBM – Powder Bed Fusion technology –  a powdered polymer is solidified using a heat source such as a laser or a thermal print head. In VAT Photo Polymer technology, a solution of a light-sensitive polymeric substance is solidified by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Zeif revealed that in order to implement this strategy, the company is considering to acquire companies that specialize in these technologies.

Stratasys is Downsizing its Workforce by 10%

Posted on by Techtime

The US-Israel based Stratasys Ltd. announced that it is reducing its global workforce as part of a strategic plan to accelerate growth. This resizing was expected according to the company’s long term strategy, but advanced sooner due to the impact of COVID-19. It will affect approximately 10% of its 2,300 employees. The vast majority of the reduction will take place this month. Stratasys plans to complete the reduction during the third quarter of 2020.

“This reduction in force is a difficult but essential step in our ongoing strategic process,” said Yoav Zeif (photo above), Chief Executive Officer of Stratasys. “This measure is not expected to affect the progress on our forthcoming product launch plans.” The move will reduce annualized operating expenses by approximately $30 million. The company will incur a charge of approximately $6 million in severance costs, primarily in the second quarter of 2020.

Stratasys is a global provider of industrial additive manufacturing (3D printing) solutions that are used to create prototypes, manufacturing tools, and production parts for industries, including aerospace, automotive, healthcare, consumer products and education. The company was heavily impacted by the COVID-19 epidemic. Revenue for the first quarter of 2020 was $132.9 million, compared to $155.3 million for the same period last year. The 14.4% reduction was driven primarily by the adverse impact of COVID-19 on the company’s customers.

Lately, in mid May, Zeif said the company had secured resources to contain the crisis: “We have over $325 million in cash and equivalents and no debt. It’s clear that this crisis has helped generate significant awareness that 3D printing is becoming essential for accelerating design, speeding up time to market and creating more resilient supply chains.”