Honeycomb infill prints a grid of hexagons through the part, and cubic infill prints a three-dimensional pattern of cubes standing on one corner. The short answer: honeycomb was among the strongest patterns in bending and the most crush-tolerant in the open tests we could read, but it costs about 25% more filament and, per Prusa, up to twice the print time. Cubic uses about the same filament and time as grid or triangles, and OrcaSlicer rates its strength as high in both X-Y and Z.
So choose cubic as the everyday pattern for parts loaded from several directions, and honeycomb when stiffness or crushing resistance at a low density matters more than time and material. For very large parts, adaptive cubic is a third option. We found no open study that tests plain cubic against honeycomb under the same conditions, so the strength comparison below mixes honeycomb data with slicer documentation for cubic. Conditions for every number are stated, and anything else is a starting point.
The consumer toolchanger 3D printer: the SnapSwap 4-toolhead system swaps heads in 5 seconds for true multi-color and multi-material printing, with smart calibration and auto filament loading.
- 4 toolheads · 5 s swap
- Up to 500 mm/s · 20,000 mm/s²
- 270 mm cube build volume
- Multi-color & multi-material
Honeycomb or cubic in 60 seconds
- Does the part need to be light and cheap to print, loaded from several directions? Cubic at 10 to 20%.
- Does it need to resist bending or crushing at low density, and can you accept about 25% more filament and a much longer print? Honeycomb.
- Is it big with a large internal volume? Adaptive cubic: Prusa says it uses about a quarter less material than rectilinear.
- Does it break between layers? Neither pattern fixes that; change orientation or walls first.
- Not sure? Print a small test piece in both and weigh and flex them.
How the two patterns differ
| Property | Honeycomb | Cubic |
|---|---|---|
| Geometry | Grid of hexagons with paths that do not cross (Prusa) | Cubes with one corner facing down; paths cross within a layer (Prusa) |
| Strength rating (OrcaSlicer) | High in X-Y and Z | High in X-Y and Z; triangles in the horizontal plane give good X-Y strength |
| Material use | About 25% more than other infills (Prusa); OrcaSlicer: double walls in each hexagon raise consumption | Same as the simpler infills (Prusa) |
| Print time | Up to twice as long (Prusa); OrcaSlicer rates it Ultra-High | Same as the simpler infills (Prusa); OrcaSlicer rates it Normal-Low |
| Other notes | OrcaSlicer also offers 3D honeycomb (squares and octagons), rated Normal-High strength and Extra-High print time | Air pockets can insulate or help an object float when printed in waterproof filament such as PETG (Prusa) |
What open tests measured
Strength numbers depend on material, density, specimen and load direction. Compare patterns inside one study, not across rows.
| Study and conditions | Honeycomb result | Other patterns in the same study |
|---|---|---|
| PLA, three-point bending (ISO 178), 80 x 10 x 4 mm bars, 3 specimens per density (Gocyk et al., Polymers 2026) | Flexural strength 63.91 MPa at 50%, 67.18 at 60%, 70.60 at 70%, 78.96 at 80%, 77.31 at 90% | Gyroid: 59.47, 63.35, 68.78, 70.66, 75.98 MPa. Solid bars: 81.93 MPa |
| PLA, compression along Z (ISO 604), 50 mm cubes, 20% infill, 5 specimens (Llidó Barragán et al., Polymers 2026) | Yield 8.5 MPa, peak stress 13.4 MPa; highest toughness (about 3998 kJ/m3) and strain near 40% before failure | Grid 15.5 MPa but fails below 10% strain; triangles 11.7; gyroid 6.1 |
| PLA, tensile (ASTM D638), 60% infill, 3 walls, layers built along the bar so the test loads layer bonding, n = 3 (Polymers 2025) | Ultimate tensile strength 18.42 MPa; highest modulus | Grid 21.91; rectilinear 16.65; adaptive cubic 13.05 MPa |
| PETG panels, three-point bending (ASTM C393), 25% infill, 1.2 mm nozzle (PET-G pattern study, PMC 2023) | Among the best in bending, with the smallest difference between two print directions | Cubic’s bending result is not reported separately; Concentric and Hilbert curve were weakest |
Reading across them: honeycomb is not the strongest in every test (grid beat it in tension and in Z compression), but it is consistently near the top, and it deforms rather than shattering in compression. The only cubic-family result is adaptive cubic, which is a lower-density-near-the-centre variant and was the weakest of four in the tensile test. It does not describe plain cubic.
All of these are small-sample studies with limitations noted by the authors, including three specimens per condition in two of them and inconsistencies in the PLA compression paper’s tables. They show tendencies, not design values.
Material and print time
Weight and time are where the two patterns differ most clearly. In the PETG panel study, which used slicer estimates per cubic metre at 25% infill:
| Pattern | Weight (kg/m3) | Print time (h per m3) | Cost per m3 vs cubic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubic | 335 | 919 | baseline |
| Grid | 333 | 846 | about 1% lower |
| Honeycomb | 419 | 2969 | about 26% higher |
| 3D honeycomb | 499 | 2868 | about 50% higher |
The study used a large-format printer with a 1.2 mm nozzle and 0.6 mm layers, so absolute values do not carry over to a 0.4 mm desktop machine, but the proportions match Prusa’s statement that honeycomb uses about 25% more material and can take up to twice as long. In the PLA compression test at 20%, honeycomb cubes weighed 49.36 g against 42.34 g for grid, and the slicer estimated 210 minutes against 95.
Honeycomb density: what low settings cost you
The same compression paper also tested honeycomb at lower densities. At 20% infill the yield strength was about 8.5 MPa, at 10% about 4.8 MPa and at 5% about 4.0 MPa, while estimated print time fell from 210 to 106 to 77 minutes and filament use from 15.78 m to 12.43 m to 9.24 m. The authors recommend 20% as the best trade-off for that part. The PETG paper likewise found a steep performance drop for honeycomb between 5% and 20%. Lower density saves time, but honeycomb loses its advantage when it gets too sparse.
Which pattern for which part
Density ranges in this table are starting points to adjust, not tested optimums.
| Part | Pattern to try | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Everyday functional part, loaded from several directions | Cubic, 10 to 20% | Same cost as simple infills; Orca rates strength High in X-Y and Z |
| Panel loaded in bending, or a part that must absorb crushing, where weight is secondary | Honeycomb, 15 to 25% | Best bending and crush behaviour in the tests above (starting range, not a tested optimum) |
| Large, thick part with a big internal volume | Adaptive cubic | About 25% less material than rectilinear (Prusa) |
| Part that must keep two channels separate, such as air and water | 3D honeycomb | OrcaSlicer lists this as its use |
| Part loaded in tension along the layer plane | Grid or rectilinear | Grid had the highest tensile strength in the PLA tensile study |
| Part that needs equal behaviour in all directions and little filament | Gyroid | See the gyroid guide |
For gyroid, which sits between the two on material use, read the gyroid infill guide. The infill pattern and density guide covers the full list of patterns, density starting points and why walls usually matter more.
Settings and orientation that matter more than the pattern
- Walls first. Prusa says the strength of a model is mostly defined by the number of perimeters, not the infill. Add one or two walls before raising density.
- Orientation. Infill cannot fix a part that splits between layers. See print orientation for strength and layer splitting.
- Top layers. Sparse infill leaves gaps under the top surface; add top layers rather than raising the whole density.
- Test pieces. A 20 mm cube of each pattern, weighed on a kitchen scale and flexed or crushed by hand, tells you more about your printer and filament than any table. This is a suggested check, not one of our results.
Common mistakes
- Treating honeycomb as automatically stronger. It was top-tier in bending and compression but not in tension.
- Choosing it for speed. Prusa says it can take up to twice the time of the other patterns.
- Judging by density alone. At the same percentage the patterns have different mass, so weigh the part.
- Using honeycomb below about 10% on a part that carries load; the data above shows a steep drop at 5%.
- Expecting infill to rescue a weak orientation or too few walls.
Frequently asked questions
Is honeycomb infill stronger than cubic?
In the open tests we found, honeycomb was among the strongest patterns in bending and compression at low to moderate density. We did not find a test that compares it with plain cubic under identical conditions, so the claim that it beats cubic is not verified. Honeycomb costs about 25% more filament and takes longer to print.
Which infill is lighter, honeycomb or cubic?
Cubic. Prusa says honeycomb uses about 25% more material, and in the PETG panel study honeycomb was 419 kg/m3 against 335 for cubic. Use the same density setting and weigh the finished parts to confirm on your slicer.
Is cubic infill isotropic?
OrcaSlicer rates cubic strength as high in both X-Y and Z and describes the pattern as distributing force in all directions. We found no open test that measured directional differences for plain cubic, so treat it as a documented design intent rather than a verified property.
Is 3D honeycomb better than normal honeycomb?
Not for strength. OrcaSlicer rates 3D honeycomb as Normal-High in strength against High for honeycomb, with Extra-High print time. It is meant for parts that keep two channels separate or need a filled top surface.
Sources
- Prusa Knowledge Base: Infill patterns
- Prusa Knowledge Base: Infill
- OrcaSlicer wiki: Strength settings, patterns
- Gocyk, Afshar, Abali (2026), Polymers: strength variations with honeycomb, gyroid and Archimedean chords infill
- Llidó Barragán et al. (2026), Polymers: compressive performance of PLA infill patterns
- Polymers (2026): infill geometry effects on PLA tensile performance
- Influence of 3D microstructure pattern and infill density on PET-G panels (PMC)
