I’d like someone to finally clear this matter up, as it has been a source of frustration for years in front of opposite publicity. And seems they are operating in a very hazy realm that exploits a certain amount of misinformation to market their products as equivalents, when in fact they are not. And by extension… of the products manufactured from them.
Suddenly, Asian companies are popping up with printers that cost a fraction of the price—one-tenth, even—claiming to achieve Z-axis resolutions that match or even surpass ours; something we all know is crucial for a professional finish.
Yet, their sample prints clearly show visible layer lines, indicating they don’t actually deliver on those claims. And when you look at the usage instructions, you see that if you switch to, say, 25-micron resolution, the models end up compressed to half their height. They tell them to resize the model to fix this—but doesn’t that just bring you back to 50-micron resolution? 
It’s all very confusing. Can anyone shed some light on this? Because if our Formlabs machines do indeed still hold a competitive edge, we can’t simply let others claim they’re doing the exact same thing.
In fact, it’s highly suspicious that their software includes a “blurring” or “smoothing” function applied during printing—specifically designed to mask those very layer steps.
Thank you !!
Ok, I understand that I am not the only one in the same confusion 
There are now plenty of consumer resin printers costing a fraction of the price that can produce very similar visible results, especially for miniatures, display models, and other prints where dimensional certification is not the main concern. Some of them even have significantly smaller native XY pixels than the Form 4.
That does not necessarily make them equivalent in every respect. The Form 4 may still offer a better overall workflow, more consistent material profiles, resin heating, automated resin management, sensors, support, and potentially better repeatability across many prints.
That’s precisely the argument competitors use with other brands. And I don’t consider it true or correct.
In fact, I own a Form 2 and therefore use laser technology. So I’m completely unaware of these companies’ advertising regarding X/Y resolutions. Which, frankly, makes me laugh. Laser printing frees you from the problems of grid-like shapes and circles, and from the “who has the highest K res” competition. This reminds me of the race between 2D inkjet and laser printers. The same thing happened then, and even today laser printers are unbeatable. And on the other hand, going back to 3D printing, a resolution of 25 microns is more than enough to create sharp points and angles.
The issue, and this is what I was clearly referring to in my comment, is the Z resolution.
In fact, their machines are forced to use software tricks to “blur” surfaces in an attempt to eliminate layer transitions on curves. This is a clear admission of their inability to do it without such tricks.
The Z-axis is precisely the great mystery of these printers. It’s the least discussed aspect in their advertising, even though it’s the most important factor in the results.
And although they mention minimum resolutions, it’s the least discussed aspect in their ads.
It doesn’t make sense when, as you rightly point out, they dedicate significant space to discussing resin heaters (yes, it’s not just Formlabs that uses them anymore. Some of these printers do too).
It’s not a defining factor of quality, especially when you can use a heater next to your printer, as those of us who use Open mode do.
X/Y resolution ceased to be an issue a long time ago. The Z-axis isn’t. Because it’s what causes layer jumps.