Kornit Q2 2026: 60% of Systems Sold to Screen Printers as Digital Garment Printing Accelerates

Kornit Digital’s latest financial results contain a statistic that matters well beyond investors: around 60% of the systems it sold in both Q2 and the first half of 2026 went to traditional screen printers.

That figure gives fresh evidence of a shift already visible across garment decoration. Screen printing remains important for high-volume, repeat designs, but more businesses are adding industrial digital production so they can handle shorter runs, more colours, faster artwork changes and print-on-demand orders without the setup requirements of screens.

What did Kornit report for Q2 2026?

Kornit Digital reported $55.3 million in total revenue for the quarter ended 30 June 2026, up from $49.8 million in the same period a year earlier.

The company also reported several indicators of increased system use and recurring business:

• annual recurring revenue reached $33.8 million, up 79% year on year;
• revenue from its All-Inclusive Click programme rose 112% year on year;
• trailing 12-month print impressions increased 15%;
• approximately 60% of systems sold in Q2 and H1 2026 were sold to traditional screen printers;
• Kornit recorded positive operating cash flow for an eleventh consecutive quarter.

The company still reported a GAAP net loss of $11.2 million for the quarter, so the results are not simply a story of uninterrupted profitability. The more relevant signal for the garment-printing market is where new equipment is being adopted and what type of production those buyers are trying to add.

Why is the 60% screen-printer figure significant?

Screen printing is one of the most established methods for decorating T-shirts, hoodies and other garments. It can be extremely efficient when the same design is being produced in large quantities, particularly where the artwork uses a limited number of colours.

The challenge comes when order patterns change.

Customers increasingly ask for small launches, personalised merchandise, frequent artwork changes, samples, creator drops and lower-risk stock commitments. Each of those jobs can make traditional screen setup less attractive because screens need to be prepared for each design and colour separation.

Digital garment printing removes much of that setup. Artwork can move from file to printer without creating physical screens, which makes short runs and complex full-colour graphics easier to schedule.

Kornit’s latest sales mix does not prove that screen printing is disappearing. It does, however, suggest that a meaningful share of established screen-print businesses now see digital production as important enough to invest in alongside — or in some cases instead of — parts of their analogue workflow.

Is digital printing replacing screen printing?

Not completely.

The more realistic 2026 trend is hybrid production: printers choose the method that best matches each job.

Screen printing can still make strong commercial sense for large, repeated runs where setup costs are spread across hundreds or thousands of garments. Digital methods such as direct-to-garment printing become attractive when businesses need shorter quantities, detailed artwork, variable designs or rapid changeovers.

Kornit itself has been targeting the screen-printing market with industrial DTG systems such as Apollo and Atlas platforms. Its Q2 statement says the company is seeing momentum in the transition from analogue to digital manufacturing, especially among traditional screen printers.

That is consistent with wider industry coverage during 2026. UK manufacturer Basic Prints, for example, has expanded its digital capacity with Kornit Apollo systems as part of a move toward a digital-first production model.

What does this mean for custom T-shirt buyers?

Most customers do not care which industrial printer produced their order. They care about four things: quality, price, turnaround and whether they can order the quantity they actually need.

The shift toward digital matters because it can change those practical buying conditions.

Smaller orders become easier to produce

Traditional screen printing often becomes more economical as volume rises because setup costs can be divided across more garments. Digital printing does not require the same screen preparation, which makes one-offs, samples and small batches more practical.

For small businesses and creators, that can reduce the risk of buying dozens of garments before knowing whether a design will sell.

Full-colour artwork becomes easier to handle

Photographic graphics, gradients and designs containing many colours can require more screen-print preparation. Digital garment printers can reproduce complex artwork directly from a digital file, subject to artwork quality, colour management and garment compatibility.

Reprints and design changes can be faster

A digital workflow can make it simpler to switch from one approved artwork file to another. That is useful for limited editions, event merchandise, staff names, creator launches and other jobs where designs change frequently.

Print-on-demand becomes more scalable

Print-on-demand depends on producing items after they are ordered rather than printing large quantities in advance. Industrial digital equipment is particularly suited to that model because it reduces the need to set up a traditional production run every time an order changes.

Why the result matters for UK print-on-demand

ElitePrints already focuses on professional DTG production for custom garments, including low-quantity orders. The Kornit figures are relevant because they show that some of the same production characteristics valued by smaller UK customers — flexibility, short runs and faster changeovers — are also being adopted at larger industrial scale.

This does not mean every print job should be DTG. The right method still depends on the garment, design, required finish, quantity and budget.

But the commercial direction is becoming clearer: large print businesses increasingly want the ability to produce both high-volume work and small, rapidly changing orders without forcing every job through the same process.

Screen printing vs digital printing: where does each fit in 2026?

For customers comparing printing methods, a useful rule of thumb is:

Screen printing often suits

• large quantities of the same design;
• simple artwork with fewer colours;
• jobs where the setup cost can be spread over a long run;
• certain specialist inks and effects.

Digital garment printing often suits

• small and medium quantities;
• full-colour or highly detailed artwork;
• one-off samples;
• frequent design changes;
• print-on-demand fulfilment;
• personalised or variable designs.

Actual production decisions can be more complicated, and experienced printers may combine several methods across one customer account.

Recurring-revenue growth gives another clue

Kornit’s results also show strong growth in its All-Inclusive Click model, where customers pay through a usage-based structure rather than relying only on a conventional upfront equipment purchase.

AIC revenue increased 112% year on year in Q2, while annual recurring revenue reached $33.8 million.

This matters because equipment economics can affect how quickly print businesses adopt new production technology. If manufacturers make industrial digital capacity easier to scale around actual usage, more traditional decorators may be willing to add digital production without treating it as a completely separate business model.

What happens next?

Kornit expects Q3 2026 revenue of between $55 million and $60 million and an adjusted EBITDA margin between breakeven and 3%.

For the custom-apparel market, however, the more interesting number to watch may be the proportion of future system sales going to established screen printers.

If that remains high, it would strengthen the evidence that digital printing is moving further into production volumes once dominated almost entirely by screen printing.

The likely outcome is not a simple winner between the two technologies. It is a garment-printing market where businesses increasingly use screen, DTG, DTF and other processes selectively — choosing whichever workflow delivers the right combination of quality, speed, fabric compatibility and economics.

For UK customers ordering custom T-shirts, hoodies and merchandise, that competition between production methods should ultimately create more flexibility: smaller viable quantities, faster launches and a wider range of artwork that can be produced efficiently.