When 3D printing functional parts, one of the most important slicer decisions you will make is choosing the right infill pattern. Among the many available options, two patterns are constantly compared by makers: triangle infill and honeycomb infill. In this guide, we take a deep, practical look at triangles vs honeycomb infill, explaining how each works, how they perform in real-world prints, and which one makes the most sense for your project.
What Is Infill and Why Does It Matter?
Infill is the internal structure printed inside a 3D model, located between the outer walls (shells). Most prints are not fully solid because doing so would waste material and dramatically increase print time. Instead, infill provides internal support, rigidity, and strength while keeping material use efficient.
The infill pattern you choose directly affects:
- Mechanical strength and rigidity
- Weight of the printed part
- Material consumption
- Print time and slicing complexity
This is why choosing the right infill pattern is just as important as selecting infill density.
What Is Triangle Infill?
Triangle infill uses a repeating network of interconnected triangles inside the printed object. The lines intersect at angles that form rigid triangular cells throughout the internal volume.
Triangles are one of the most structurally stable shapes in engineering. Unlike squares or rectangles, triangles cannot deform without changing the length of their sides, which gives this infill pattern excellent stiffness.
Advantages of Triangle Infill
- High rigidity under compression and lateral loads
- Good strength-to-material ratio
- Reliable performance for functional parts
- More resistant to shear forces than basic grid infill
Disadvantages of Triangle Infill
- Slower than simple line or rectilinear infill
- Not perfectly isotropic (strength can vary by direction)
- Benefits decrease significantly at very low densities
Triangle infill is widely used for parts that need dependable internal support without excessive material usage.
What Is Honeycomb Infill?
Honeycomb infill is based on a repeating hexagonal structure inspired by natural honeycombs. The hexagon is a mathematically efficient shape that fills space evenly while maintaining strength.
This pattern creates a network of tightly packed hexagonal cells that distribute forces across multiple directions, making it popular for lightweight yet durable parts.
Advantages of Honeycomb Infill
- Excellent strength-to-weight ratio
- Efficient use of material
- Even stress distribution
- Visually appealing internal structure
Disadvantages of Honeycomb Infill
- Slower print times due to complex geometry
- More slicing and travel movements
- Not always the strongest option for directional loads
Honeycomb infill is often chosen when reducing weight while maintaining reasonable strength is the primary goal.
Triangles vs Honeycomb Infill – Direct Comparison
Mechanical Strength
Triangle infill provides excellent rigidity thanks to its stable geometry. It performs especially well under compression and mechanical stress.
Honeycomb infill also offers strong performance but focuses more on spreading loads across the structure rather than maximum stiffness in a single direction.
Verdict: Triangle infill is slightly more rigid overall, while honeycomb offers balanced strength across multiple directions.
Print Speed
Triangle infill generally prints faster than honeycomb because it involves fewer complex paths and travel moves.
Honeycomb infill tends to increase print time due to its detailed hexagonal geometry.
Verdict: Triangle infill usually wins when print speed matters.
Material Usage
Triangle infill uses a moderate amount of material and provides solid strength without excessive filament consumption.
Honeycomb infill is extremely efficient at covering internal volume with minimal material, especially at low to medium densities.
Verdict: Honeycomb infill is often more material-efficient.
Load Distribution
Triangle infill handles directional loads very well but may behave differently depending on orientation.
Honeycomb infill distributes forces more evenly, making it useful for parts exposed to unpredictable or multi-directional stress.
Verdict: Honeycomb infill offers more uniform load distribution.
Real-World Use Cases
- Functional mechanical parts: Triangle infill
- Lightweight structural components: Honeycomb infill
- Fast prototypes: Triangle infill
- Visually exposed interiors: Honeycomb infill
What Makers and Testing Reveal
Testing and community experience consistently show that no infill pattern is universally superior. Results depend heavily on part geometry, print orientation, material, wall thickness, and infill density.
Many experienced makers note that increasing wall count often provides more strength than changing infill patterns alone. Infill should be treated as a supporting structure, not the sole strength solution.
Infill Density – A Critical Factor
Regardless of whether you choose triangle or honeycomb infill, density plays a major role in final part performance.
- 10–20%: Visual parts and light-duty prints
- 20–40%: Most functional components
- 40–60%+: Heavy load-bearing parts
At higher densities, differences between patterns become less noticeable, while at lower densities, pattern choice matters more.
How to Choose Between Triangle and Honeycomb Infill
Choose Triangle Infill If:
- You need rigidity and stiffness
- The part will experience mechanical stress
- Print speed matters
- You want predictable strength
Choose Honeycomb Infill If:
- Weight reduction is important
- Loads may come from multiple directions
- Material efficiency is a priority
- You want a visually pleasing internal structure
Final Thoughts
When comparing triangles vs honeycomb infill, the best choice depends entirely on your goals. Triangle infill excels in rigidity and speed, while honeycomb infill shines in efficiency and balanced strength.
Understanding how each pattern behaves allows you to fine-tune your slicer settings and produce stronger, lighter, and more reliable prints. There is no single “best” infill — only the right infill for the job.