Technical comparison
Filament vs. Pellet 3D Printing: FFF vs FGF — Which Is Right for Large Format?
If you already print with filament and are considering the jump to large-format pieces for scenography or props, there's something nobody tells you clearly: filament has a ceiling. This guide explains why FGF (pellet) technology exists, what separates it from traditional FFF, and when it makes sense to make the switch.
01 — The basicsWhat is FFF and what is FGF
Both technologies are 3D printing by thermoplastic material extrusion. The difference lies in the form the material comes in and the scale of the process.
Traditional technology
FFF — Fused Filament Fabrication
Plastic comes as a spool of filament (1.75 mm or 2.85 mm wire). The extruder melts the filament and deposits it layer by layer. This is the technology used by most 3D printers on the market.
- Filament on typical 1 kg spool
- Nozzle 0.2 to 1 mm diameter
- Extrusion speed: 20–200 g/h
- Max pieces: 30–60 cm on large machines
- High resolution, very thin layers possible
Large-format technology
FGF — Fused Granule Fabrication
Plastic comes as pellets (2–5 mm granules), the same material used in the plastics industry. The extruder melts the granules directly and deposits them through much larger nozzles.
- Industrial pellet in bulk (25 kg bags)
- Nozzle 2 to 12 mm diameter
- Extrusion speed: 1–3 kg/h
- Pieces up to 1 meter monolithic (P1300)
- High speed, optimized for volume
An important clarification: FGF doesn't replace FFF for everything. They are complementary technologies with different use cases. FFF is still better for small pieces with high dimensional precision. FGF is the option when size, material cost or production speed are the critical factors.
02 — What changes in practiceThe 5 differences that change everything
| Criterion | FFF — filament | FGF — pellet (Fused Form) |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum piece size | 30–60 cm (large machines) | Up to 1,000 mm monolithic (P1300) |
| Material cost | $15–40 USD/kg filament | $2–8 USD/kg industrial pellet |
| Production speed | 20–200 g/h | 1,000–8,000 g/h |
| Layer resolution | 0.05–0.4 mm (high precision) | 0.5–8 mm (optimized for volume) |
| Material variety | Commercially available filaments | All industrial pellets + composites |
| Equipment cost | $500–15,000 USD | Industrial investment (higher ticket) |
| Learning curve | Low — lots of online resources | Medium — training included |
| Maintenance | Simple, accessible parts | Weekly routine, technical support |
| For scenography pieces >60 cm | Not viable monolithic | Designed exactly for this |
03 — The biggest gapMaterial cost: 8 to 15 times less
This is the factor that surprises people coming from FFF the most. Filament is basically pellet that has gone through an extrusion process to become wire. That transformation process has a cost — and you pay that cost in every spool.
For a 60 cm scenography prop weighing approximately 2 kg of printed material, the difference is:
| Material | Cost in filament | Cost in FGF pellet | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIPS (2 kg) | $50 USD | $7 USD | $43 USD · 86% |
| PETG (2 kg) | $45 USD | $8 USD | $37 USD · 82% |
| PLA (2 kg) | $30 USD | $5 USD | $25 USD · 83% |
| Glass fiber composite (2 kg) | $120 USD | $14 USD | $106 USD · 88% |
On a 10-piece project at 60 cm each, material savings alone can exceed $300–$400 USD. On larger pieces — where FGF is the only viable option — the savings are structural, not marginal.
Recycled filament doesn't solve the problem. While recycled filament cuts the cost in half, it's still 3–4 times more expensive than virgin pellet. And its quality is more variable. Industrial recycled pellet, on the other hand, has controlled quality standards.
04 — The other gapSpeed and print volume
A standard FFF extruder deposits between 20 and 100 grams of material per hour. An FGF extruder deposits up to 3 kg per hour. The difference isn't in percentage — it's in orders of magnitude.
| Scenario | FFF — filament | FGF — Fused Form |
|---|---|---|
| 500 g piece (bust ~40 cm) | 5–25 hours printing | 15–30 minutes |
| 2 kg piece (figure ~80 cm) | 20–100 hours | 30–120 minutes |
| 5 kg piece (sculpture ~1.2 m) | Not viable monolithic | 2–5 hours |
| 10 replicas of 1 kg each | 100–500 hours total | 15–40 hours total |
The speed trade-off: resolution
FGF's speed comes at a cost: layer resolution is coarser and print lines are more visible. With a 4 mm nozzle (standard for scenography), layers are 2 to 4 mm tall. This requires a post-print finishing process with sanding and primer.
For painted scenography and props, this is not a problem — the finishing process is the same as with EPS or fiberglass, and the final result is indistinguishable. For very fine-detail pieces that won't be painted, FFF remains the option.
05 — The widest catalogAvailable materials
Here FGF has another structural advantage: it can use any industrial thermoplastic pellet. The catalog of materials available in pellet form is much broader than filaments, because pellet is the base material of the entire global plastics industry.
| Material | Available in FFF | Available in FGF |
|---|---|---|
| PLA, PETG, HIPS, ABS, TPU | Yes — wide variety | Yes — at lower cost |
| Nylon (PA6, PA12) | Yes, limited | Yes — standard industrial pellet |
| Polypropylene (PP) | Very difficult, poor adhesion | Yes — with proper bed |
| Glass fiber composite | Yes, but expensive and brittle filament | Yes — robust industrial pellet |
| Carbon fiber composite | Yes, but wears nozzle quickly | Yes — with hardened nozzle |
| Wood / stone composite | Yes, limited | Yes — wide industrial range |
| High-performance materials (PEEK, PEI) | Requires very specialized equipment | Available in industrial pellet |
| Industrial recycled pellet | Not available as filament | Yes — reduces cost up to 45% |
06 — The practical decisionWhen does FGF make sense?
Not every company needs to make the jump to FGF. The decision depends on the type of work, volume and piece size. This table helps orient the decision:
| If your situation is... | FFF (filament) | FGF — Fused Form |
|---|---|---|
| Pieces under 30 cm without painted finish | Stay with FFF | Oversized |
| 30–60 cm pieces for scenography | Possible, but expensive and slow | FGF is more efficient |
| Pieces over 60 cm | Not viable monolithic | FGF is the only real option |
| More than 4 large projects per year | Material cost unsustainable | ROI in under 12 months |
| Replication of identical pieces in series | Slow, expensive | FGF scales directly |
| Rapid prototyping of small pieces | FFF is more agile | Possible but not optimal |
The verdict for scenography and prop companies
If you regularly make props over 50 cm that you paint, FGF is the right technology. Material cost 7–10× lower and production speed 20–40× faster justify the equipment investment.
If you make small high-precision pieces or are in early prototyping stage, FFF remains the right tool. There's no contradiction in having both technologies in the same workshop.
The tipping point for most active studios is when filament cost per project regularly exceeds $50–80 USD. At that point, FGF pellet generates savings from the very first print.
07 — SummaryConclusion
FFF and FGF are two scales of the same technology. FFF democratized 3D printing on the desktop. FGF takes it to the industrial workshop. For large-format scenography, props and sculptures, FGF's advantages are hard to ignore:
| Factor | FFF | FGF — Fused Form |
|---|---|---|
| Material cost | $15–40/kg | $2–8/kg |
| Maximum size | 30–60 cm | Up to 1,000 mm |
| Speed | 20–200 g/h | 1–8 kg/h |
| For painted scenography pieces | Possible but inefficient | Designed for this |
| Initial investment | Low | Medium-high · ROI <12 months |
Want to see the P600+ or P1300 in action?
Schedule a video demo with the Fused Form technical team and get all your questions answered before making a decision.
Request demo and quote →No commitment · Response in less than 24 business hours