America’s Small Factories are Still Waiting for Work

Join 3D Printing Industry’s online AMA Software event on 22 October 2026 to explore how AI and software are changing manufacturing, with speakers from NVIDIA, Autodesk and Materialise. American manufacturers are accumulating orders while many smaller factories struggle to find enough work. In Xometry’s 2027 Manufacturing Outlook, 77% of manufacturers report larger production backlogs than a year ago. Yet 44% of businesses with annual revenue below $50m are operating at less than 70% capacity. Among those turning over more than $100m, the proportion is 16%. For suppliers considering another machine purchase, those figures deserve attention. Much of the smaller companies’ existing equipment has room to run. Buyers with growing order books may have reasons for leaving it idle. At this week’s Sifted Summit in London, Sam Baker, investment manager at Planet A, described how far some Chinese suppliers were prepared to go to secure work. “There are CNC shops that I visited in China who are machining parts for free in exchange for keeping the offcuts of the material that the buyer provides, so that they can make some money on selling the material on the secondary market,” he said. Finding work and qualifying for it “The capacity problem in US manufacturing is really a visibility and qualification problem,” Xometry told 3D Printing Industry in response to questions about the findings. Buyers tend to use suppliers they already know, the company argues, leaving other shops short of orders. This diagnosis fits Xometry’s business neatly. Its manufacturing marketplace connects buyers with suppliers, earning its place in procurement by finding capacity and organising production. The report combines a commissioned survey with platform data, supplier research and commentary from its own executives. In a 2024 interview with 3D Printing Industry, John May, managing partner at CORE Industrial Partners, described the attraction of fragmented manufacturing markets and anticipated further consolidation among service bureaus. Xometry’s findings suggest a commercial rationale for bringing smaller suppliers together: available machines do not guarantee access to customers. CORE pursues acquisitions; Xometry offers access through its marketplace. May also argued that rising Chinese costs were making North American production more competitive. Baker’s account of shops machining for the value of the scrap suggests how aggressively some suppliers can price work when orders are scarce. There is evidence for the customer-finding problem. Among shops operating below 70% capacity, 48% identify finding enough work as their biggest obstacle to winning new business. Just 9% of shops at full capacity say the same. Among the latter, 64% point to workforce or capacity constraints. The distinction between small and underused matters. These figures group businesses by utilisation; they do not establish that smaller manufacturers face the same obstacles in the same proportions. Nor does spare capacity alone establish that a shop has the equipment, skills and approvals required for the orders waiting elsewhere. Certification is an identifiable barrier. Thirty per cent of manufacturers rank certification and compliance requirements among their two biggest obstacles to winning new business. On Xometry’s platform, roughly two-thirds of aerospace and defence orders now carry at least one certification or compliance requirement, compared with about half in 2023. The company’s foundation has committed $500,000 through MxD to help smaller shops obtain cybersecurity certification and compete for government and defence work. Such expenditure addresses a requirement that better search results cannot remove. AI budgets grow The survey also records growing enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, although the headline comparisons need care. This year’s executive survey covers the US; last year’s included the UK and Europe. The report compares the 57% reporting significant returns from AI investment with a previous figure of 44%. Asked for a comparable US figure, Xometry supplied 42.1% for last year. On that basis, the increase is 14.9 percentage points. These are respondents’ assessments of returns, without a published measure of the savings or additional profit involved. For spending, 94% plan to invest more than $100,000 in AI in 2027. The report compares that with 85% last year, but Xometry’s reply did not provide a US-only baseline for this measure. Engineers and purchasing teams feature prominently in the expected applications. Fifty-one per cent of respondents expect AI’s greatest impact to be in manufacturability and costing, ahead of quality control at 47% and production execution at 32%. Almost two-thirds already use general-purpose AI for manufacturability review. Xometry has more specific information to draw on: part geometry, supplier capabilities, pricing and production history. It says buyers accept its AI manufacturing-process recommendations more than 85% of the time. Asked what this delivers in lower costs, shorter lead times or better quality, the company cited the survey’s overall AI returns and aerospace and defence respondents’ expectations for manufacturability and costing. It supplied no measurements linking acceptance of its recommendations to those outcomes. Buyers might also accept a recommendation because it confirms the process they intended to use. Where does additive manufacturing fit? For additive manufacturing, the unanswered questions are particularly relevant. Software that influences process selection could affect which jobs reach a 3D printing bureau before the bureau has an opportunity to quote. The frequency with which buyers are steered between additive manufacturing and CNC machining would help establish the commercial significance. It also confirmed that the outlook does not separately report additive manufacturing’s capacity utilisation, order growth or split between prototyping and production. A printing bureau cannot use the headline findings to establish whether its own market is becoming busier. The underlying sample warrants restraint. John Zogby Strategies surveyed 150 US manufacturing executives in August 2026, with a stated overall margin of error of plus or minus eight percentage points. Industry, revenue and company-size subgroups contain roughly 30–55 respondents. A separate survey covered 189 Xometry partner facilities. The report gives buyers reason to look beyond their established suppliers and gives smaller shops evidence that finding customers remains a substantial problem. Whether those shops can absorb the growing backlogs will depend on the jobs available. For additive manufacturers, the missing detail is basic: which parts, in which materials, at what volumes, and with which approvals? Register now for AMA: Software 2026. Join 3D Printing Industry on 22 October for expert presentations, panel discussions and live audience Q&A exploring the software shaping additive manufacturing. Register here. To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, don’t forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter or follow us on LinkedIn. Explore the full Future of 3D Printing and Executive Survey series from 3D Printing Industry, featuring perspectives from CEOs, engineers, and industry leaders on the industrialization of additive manufacturing, 3D printing industry trends 2026, qualification, supply chains, and additive manufacturing industry analysis.