The hard part is data quality. For exactly the reason you pointed out with 3dfilamentprofiles.com, lots of mid/low quality entries are useless. The tool is only useful if every entry is complete and trustworthy.
I think that is exactly the right concern. User-entered specification data would probably turn into noise very quickly. If this expands beyond Bambu, I agree that the source data probably has to come from official manufacturer datasheets or structured manufacturer-provided data only.
Where I think the problem may still be manageable is by treating comparability as part of the data model rather than trying to force every filament into one universal table.
For example:
-
Plot all available data, but flag or grey out filaments that are missing one of the selected parameters.
-
Treat different test conditions as separate fields. Heat Deflection Temperature at 0.45 MPa and HDT at 1.8 MPa should not be treated as the same value. They could appear as separate selectable metrics.
-
Store the test method, units, load condition, and source with each value where available. That way the tool can distinguish between directly comparable values and “similar, but not identical” values.
-
For terminology differences, use a mapped vocabulary, but only where the underlying test appears equivalent. For example, Prusa’s “Flexural Strength” and Bambu’s “Bending Strength” may be close enough to group, but the tool could still label it as a normalized category and preserve the original manufacturer term in the details.
-
Instead of allowing users to hand-enter values, allow users to report suspected errors, missing datasheets, or bad mappings. That gives you community help without letting the dataset turn into 3dfilamentprofiles.com all over again.
-
A simple comparability indicator might help. Something like:
- Directly comparable
- Comparable with caution
- Same general property, different test condition
- Insufficient data
That would let the tool remain useful even when the dataset is imperfect, without pretending the numbers are more precise than they are.
On traction, I would give it some time. Seventy views from one thread probably is not enough signal yet. If you wanted to test broader interest, you might send it to a few community-focused 3D printing YouTubers or forum moderators. A tool like this could get traction quickly if the right people see it.
I also think third-party filament support is where the tool becomes much more interesting. A lot of users do not buy most of their filament from Bambu, so adding companies like Polymaker, Hatchbox, eSUN, SUNLU, colorFabb, Atomic Filament, Proto-pasta, and 3DXTech would make the comparison much more useful. Some may even be willing to provide structured data, spreadsheets, JSON, CSV, or cleaner datasheet references if the site links back to their product pages.
You are right that none of this is a four-hour job. The tool itself is impressive, but the real work is probably building a trustworthy data structure around it. I think your instinct to avoid user-entered specs is correct. User-reported corrections, source links, and comparability flags seem like the safer way to scale it.
).
& 
. I had posted my own Excel visualization in the forum a few times. What was a real eye opener was expressing all filament values as a percentage of the corresponding PLA Basic value. 
That z-impact…
