DATASHEET · SIDE BY SIDE
eSUN eTPU-95A vs Polymaker PolyFlex TPU95
From the eSUN eTPU-95A review: PolyFlex is more consistent in diameter and feeds more reliably; eSUN costs noticeably less and prints nearly as well once dried.
Measured wins
| Spec | eSUN eTPU-95A | Polymaker PolyFlex TPU95 |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Material | TPU | TPU |
| Manufacturer | eSUN | Polymaker |
| Diameter | 1.75 mm | 1.75 mm |
| Thermal | ||
| Print temp | 220 to 250°C | 210 to 230°C |
| Bed temp | 45 to 60°C | 25 to 60°C |
| Warping | none | none |
| Quality | ||
| Layer adhesion | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Bed adhesion | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Stringing resistance | 3/5 | 3/5 |
| Verdict | ||
| Overall rating | 4.2/5 | 4.4/5 |
| Price / kg | — | — |
How they differ on the data
eSUN eTPU-95A runs 15°C hotter on the nozzle (window midpoints 235°C and 220°C), and the two windows share 10°C of range, so one profile can cover both. eSUN eTPU-95A lists the wider window (30°C against 20°C). eSUN eTPU-95A runs 10°C hotter on the bed (window midpoints 53°C and 43°C), and the two windows share 15°C of range, so one profile can cover both. Polymaker PolyFlex TPU95 lists the wider window (35°C against 15°C).
eSUN eTPU-95A ships on a 1 kg spool and Polymaker PolyFlex TPU95 on 0.75 kg, so compare price per kilogram rather than per spool.