Flexible filaments have dramatically expanded the capabilities of desktop FDM 3D printing. Unlike rigid materials such as PLA or ABS, flexible materials allow users to create parts that bend, compress, stretch, and recover their original shape. These properties make flexible filament ideal for phone cases, seals, gaskets, wearable products, vibration dampeners, robotics, protective covers, and industrial components.
The growing demand for specialized materials reflects the broader expansion of additive manufacturing. According to MarketsandMarkets, the global 3D printing filament market was valued at USD 1.77 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach USD 4.20 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 18.8%. Growth is being driven by increasing adoption across industries such as education, automotive, military, OEMs, and consumer products, where material performance is becoming just as important as printer capabilities.
Choosing the best flexible filament can be challenging because flexibility is only one factor to consider. Printability, durability, tensile strength, elasticity, surface quality, and cost all influence which material is best suited for a particular application. This My3DMatter study remains one of the most comprehensive evaluations of flexible filaments and provides valuable insights for anyone searching for the best flexible 3D printer filament.
If you're looking for a quick answer before diving into the study, here are the key findings:
Flexible filament is a category of 3D printing material designed to bend, stretch, compress, and return to its original shape without breaking. Most flexible filaments are manufactured from TPU or TPE and are often referred to as rubber 3D printer filament.
Please enjoy this excellent study reprinted with permission from My3DMatter.
Flexible filaments arrived on the market a couple of years ago and have really broadened the range of objects that can be made with personal 3D printers. While flexibility is a new dimension to the material selection that users can now tap into, this dimension has not been well investigated.
There are many suppliers of flexible materials, and this diverse product selection is also associated with a wide range of filament flexibility levels, mechanical performance, visual quality and processability. Also, there is currently little understanding of how to use a given filament to get the right flexibility for prints, in particular by adjusting the infill %.
This study compares a set of six flexible filaments along various criteria to provide users with a point of comparison among current suppliers. It also gives insight into how to use flexible filaments to reach the right level of flexibility, and the key parameters to adjust when printing this type of material.
Choosing the right flexible filament is first and foremost linked to how flexible the user wants his object to be. So in all our results tables, we listed the products by order of flexibility: SemiFlex is the least flexible filament and FilaFlex is the most flexible.
Here are the high-level results from our study[1]:
Overall, the quality of the filament selection is very good. Making flexible filaments is not easy so there is a natural filter on manufacturers who are able to do it. In addition, only companies that are confident in their materials have taken part in the study[2], so there is also a selection bias in this sample.
The study shows that filaments that are more flexible tend to have lower quality and process grades, due to their physical nature. 3D printers were designed for rigid filament, and the adaptation to flexible filaments decreases the visual quality and printability of objects.
NinjaFlex proposes two great filaments with different levels of flexibility: SemiFlex and NinjaFlex. They are a bit more expensive than the competition, but their overall assessment seems to justify some premium, at least in the case of SemiFlex.
Polymaker’s PolyFlex is also a very good semi-flexible filament, very easy to print and with great visual quality, but does not match the mechanical performance of the rest of the selection. However, its lower price makes for a great option.
MadeSolid’s FlexSolid has good mechanical performance but is visually not on par with SemiFlex and PolyFlex.
Oo-kuma’s TrueFlex is also a great flexible filament as it is the only one in the flexible category to have good strength. It is also the cheapest of the selection, which makes it an attractive option.
Very flexible filament FilaFlex is hard to print, and does not have a good visual quality, so it should be reserved for applications where higher flexibility is crucial and NinjaFlex or TrueFlex are not flexible enough.
Flexible filament is a category of 3D printing material designed to bend, stretch, compress, and return to its original shape without breaking. Most flexible filaments are manufactured from Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) or Thermoplastic Elastomers (TPE), materials that offer rubber-like properties while remaining printable on standard FDM 3D printers.
Many users refer to these materials as rubber 3D printer filament because they provide elasticity and impact resistance similar to rubber products while maintaining the advantages of additive manufacturing.
Flexible materials are becoming increasingly important for functional manufacturing applications. Research published in the National Library of Medicine highlights the growing use of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and other elastomeric materials in applications requiring flexibility, durability, impact absorption, and repeated deformation. These properties make flexible filaments particularly valuable for wearable devices, medical components, robotics, cushioning systems, and protective products.
Image Source: https://www.3dprinteros.com/all-your-filament-tracking-system-in-one-place or https://app.arcade.software/share/QZSXFfBw41DGZ51a0Spn?ref=share-link
Before we get into the testing analysis, it is important to understand what flexible filaments are and what purpose they can be used for.
A flexible material is one that can be deformed significantly under a load and revert back to its initial shape when the load is lifted.
The filaments selected in this study are Thermoplastic Elastomers, most likely of the Thermoplastic Polyurethane chemistry (TPU)[3]. This is a family of plastics that can be melted and shaped via the FDM process, but have characteristics close to rubber. Rubber itself cannot be used for FDM, because it is a thermoset and therefore cannot be melted.
For the study, we needed to find a metric to quantify “flexibility”. So we are using a filament’s hardness (opposite = softness) as a proxy for flexibility as hardness is closely correlated to stiffness (opposite = flexibility). A material’s hardness is measured on a “Shore hardness scale”. There are several Shore hardness scales depending on the hardness of the object, but for the range of materials we have here, the Shore A scale is most appropriate[4]. This scale goes from 0 to 100 and below are a few objects placed on the scale for reference:
For users evaluating the most flexible 3D filament, Shore Hardness is one of the most important measurements.
For example:
This measurement helps users compare different flexible filaments and select the appropriate material for their application.
We then divided the filaments into two broad categories: semi-flexible and flexible. While they are all “flexible” in the sense that there are more flexible than other filaments offered on the market, the range of flexibility of the filaments is still broad so we chose to split them into two groups.
At 100% infill, the filaments we are studying have the following hardness:
Shore HardnessFilamentsSemi-flexible90-93ASemiFlex, PolyFlex, FlexSolidFlexible74-85ATrueFlex, NinjaFlex, FilaFlex
While this range does not cover the whole Shore A hardness scale described above, by reducing the infill the printed object can have a much lower hardness than the 100% material. 3D Matter wanted to quantify the hardness that can be reached by adjusting the infill %, so we printed a range of specimens[5] with varying infill % and measured their hardness with a durometer, while keeping other parameters constant:
Here are the results:
This scale will help users adjust infill % to get to the required hardness. For example, if the hardness required is that of a tire tread (60A), the user can try printing a flexible filament at 50% infill, or a semi-flexible filament at 20% infill.
Users need to be careful however: same hardness does not mean that other mechanical properties are the same as well. For example, printing a flexible filament at 70% infill does not “reproduce” a semi-flexible filament printed at 30% infill: while their hardness levels are very close (~70A), the weight, max stress and elongation at break are still very different.
Here are the key evaluation criteria for the performance, quality and process tests:
The tests were carried out while controlling for all environmental parameters, all filaments from the same material being printed on the same printer with the same settings:
The testing procedure in this study was modified from that of our previous studies (PLA and Improved filaments) as it was adapted to achieve the most appropriate analysis for flexible filaments:
The ideal flexible filament depends on the end-use application.
Choose SemiFlex If:
Choose PolyFlex If:
Choose NinjaFlex If:
Choose TrueFlex If:
Choose FilaFlex If:
Image Source: https://www.3dprinteros.com/all-your-filament-tracking-system-in-one-place or https://app.arcade.software/share/QZSXFfBw41DGZ51a0Spn?ref=share-link
Detailed results: Performance test
A flexible filament shows good performance when it has a high strength, a high elongation at break and a good elasticity (a.k.a. resilience).
To test these criteria, we performed a tensile test on 3 specimens of each filament, a hysteresis test on 3 specimens, and 5 hardness tests on 1 specimen of each filament to get the following values:
The tensile and hysteresis tests were carried out with a universal testing machine, at the PIMM lab of the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Métiers ParisTech. The hardness test was conducted with a Shore A durometer. The data was compiled and averaged to build the following table (note: the “low / medium / high” characterization used here is relative within this filament selection and does not represent an absolute assessment):
In line with our intuition, semi-flexible filaments show a higher strength, lower elongation at break and lower elasticity than flexible filaments.
Within the semi-flexible category, SemiFlex and FlexSolid show very similar performance, with the highest strength and good elasticity.
Within the flexible category, NinjaFlex and Oo-kuma’s TrueFlex have very good mechanical performance:
FilaFlex is very soft and also shows very good performance, but actually have a slightly lower elongation than NinjaFlex, and have lower strength.
Detailed results: Quality test
In September 2015, we released our new quality testing file: Testman. We first did a few trials to find the best extrusion temperature for each filament. We printed two Testmans and one “owl” (.stl file from Thingiverse) under the best conditions for each filament. Then three people were asked to rank each batch from “best looking” to “worse looking”, and also group them by quality categories, along the list of criteria described here.
Based on this testing procedure, the following conclusions were drawn:
In absolute terms, current flexible filaments on the market do not show very good visual quality. Even the top flexible filaments in this list still have a visual aspect that is lacking that of rigid filaments.
However, within the selection, there are also significant differences. While more flexible filaments tend to show poorer visual quality, it is not a systematic correlation.
PolyFlex and SemiFlex come out on top pretty clearly, both in terms of the quality of the details and texture, and on the geometrical accuracy.
TrueFlex and NinjaFlex follow in aggregate assessment, but TrueFlex is better on shapes and geometry, while NinjaFlex has a better general aspect.
The other filaments have a worse visual quality, and are not advised for intricate detail work.
Detailed results: Process test
Flexible filaments are inherently harder to print than rigid filaments, mainly because the mechanical setup of FDM 3D printers is designed for the latter. Flexible filaments become more easily tangled into the extruder, have a harder time being pushed and pulled by the motors, and cannot retract as well as rigid ones.
One of the biggest challenges with flexible materials is that most desktop FDM printers were originally designed for rigid filaments such as PLA and ABS.
Common printing challenges include:
For best results, many users prefer a direct-drive extruder setup when printing flexible materials.
The key parameter to adjust when printing flexible filament is to reduce the printing speed, and this was one of the extra tests we conducted to characterize the filament’s processability. We increased speed for each filament until the print was not acceptable anymore (e.g. gaps appeared, or the flow of material stopped), and that gave us the “maximum printing speed”.
Other criteria we used are the same as our usual procedure: we gave a better grade if the spool is convenient to use (right dimensions, easy-tie for the filament… etc.), if it is easy to feed into the printer, if the filament is not getting tangled, if the filament sticks well to the platform, and if there is no or limited post-processing needed.
There is a clear correlation between filaments’ flexibility and their processability: the more flexible, the harder to print. This is true in particular with regard to the maximum printing speed reached. Semi-flexible filaments can be printed up to 80-90mm/s, but flexible filaments can only reach 30-65mm/s.
While printing speed is an issue with flexible filaments, build plate adhesion generally is not. They seem to adhere very well to the platform (glass or blue-taped), even without a heated bed or other change on the surface.
Another issue faced by the user is that the amount of material coming out of the printer is sometimes lower than expected: a certain infill is computed, but what comes out can in fact be much lower. This can be corrected, for example by applying an extrusion multiplier or extruding at a higher temperature but it is not convenient.
Flexible filaments have become an essential category within additive manufacturing, enabling the production of parts that combine elasticity, durability, and impact resistance. The My3DMatter study demonstrates that the best flexible filament depends on the intended application rather than a single performance metric.
For users prioritizing print quality and strength, SemiFlex remains one of the strongest overall performers. For applications requiring greater elasticity, NinjaFlex and FilaFlex provide some of the most flexible filament options available. PolyFlex and TrueFlex offer compelling alternatives for users seeking easier printability or better value.
While material selection remains important, producing reliable flexible parts also depends on consistent print preparation, approved material profiles, and effective printer management. Organizations that work with TPU, TPE, and other flexible materials often benefit from standardized workflows that reduce setup errors and improve repeatability across multiple printers.
3DPrinterOS helps educational institutions, makerspaces, engineering teams, and enterprises simplify these processes through cloud slicing, printer fleet management, remote monitoring, and centralized user controls. As flexible materials become more widely adopted, structured workflows can help improve both print quality and operational efficiency.
Disclaimer
We do not pretend to have an exhaustive test. In particular, the test does not account for the following parameters:
To learn more about My3DMatter and their filament studies please visit their website here: http://my3dmatter.com/
[1] The grades given in this study do not take into account how flexible the material is. Rather it is an evaluation of the quality of the filament for a given level of flexibility, i.e. we did not give a higher performance grade because a filament was more flexible
[2] Companies that decline our service offering are not included in the study
[3] Note: there are also flexible PLAs or flexible PETs in the market but they are very different in chemistry and performance. Their ability to deform and come back to their initial shape is much lower than the selection studied in this paper, so we chose to leave them out, as they would be very difficult to compare.
[4] For more rigid materials such as PLA and ABS, the Shore D scale is more appropriate.
[5] shape defined in ASTM standard D2240
SemiFlex achieved some of the strongest overall results in the My3DMatter study due to its combination of strength, print quality, and mechanical performance.
FilaFlex was identified as the most flexible filament among the materials tested in the study.
TPU is one of the most widely used flexible filament materials because it combines flexibility, durability, abrasion resistance, and elasticity.
PolyFlex and SemiFlex demonstrated some of the best printability and visual quality among the materials evaluated.
Yes, although direct-drive systems generally provide better results and allow greater control when printing highly flexible materials.
Most flexible filaments print best at slower speeds, typically between 20–40 mm/s depending on the material and printer configuration.
Shore Hardness measures the softness or hardness of a material. Lower Shore A values indicate softer and more flexible materials.
Used by higher education, enterprises, and OEMs to manage printers, files, and users from a single, cloud-based platform
Control access, users, and print permissions by team or lab
“This close collaboration has enabled Koenigsegg to tailor the platform to their specific needs, resulting in an optimized and user-friendly system for managing their 3D printers.”
Team Leader
Koenigsegg Automotive AB
Join us today and become one of our partners
%20(1).webp)
