Thermocompression (with also extrusion and injection molding) is a classical polymer shaping manufacturing, but it does not easily allow designing sophisticated shapes without using a complex mold, on the contrary to 3D printing (or polymer additive manufacturing), which is a very flexible technique. Among all 3D printing techniques, fused deposition modeling is of high potential for product manufacturing, with the capability to compete with conventional polymer processing techniques. This is a quite low cost 3D printing technique, but the range of filaments commercially available is limited. However, in some specific 3D printing processes, no filaments are necessary. Polymers pellets feed directly the printing nozzle allowing to investigate many polymeric matrices with no commercial limitation. This is of high interest for the design of flame-retarded materials, but literature is scarce in that field. In this paper, a comparison between thermocompression and 3D printing processes was performed on both neat ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer and EVA flame retarded with aluminum triHydroxyde (ATH) containing different loadings (30 or 65 wt%) and with expandable graphite (EG), ie, EVA/ATH (30 wt%), EVA/ATH (65 wt%), and EVA/EG (10 wt%), respectively. Morphological comparisons, using microscopic and electronic microprobe analyses, revealed that 3D printed plates have lower apparent density and higher porosity than thermocompressed plate. The fire-retardant properties of thermocompressed and 3D printed plates were then evaluated using mass loss calorimeter test at 50 kW/m2. Results highlight that 3D printing can be used to produce flame-retardant systems. This work is a pioneer study exploring the feasibility of using polymer additive manufacturing technology for designing efficient flame-retarded materials.