PurposeTo compare the strength, surface roughness, and hardness of newly introduced permanent three‐dimensional (3D)‐printed resin in comparison with computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) milled materials.Materials and MethodsThree 3D‐printed resins (NextDent C&B, Formlabs Permanent Crown, and VarseoSmile Crown plus) and two CAD‐CAM milled (IPS e.max ZirCAD LT and VITA Enamic) resins were used to fabricate discs specimens. A total of 200 disc specimens were fabricated according to manufacturer recommendations. Within each group, half of the specimens were subjected to thermal cycling (5°C–55°C, the 30 s, 5000 cycles). Aged and nonaged specimens were evaluated for biaxial flexural strength (BFS), surface roughness, and hardness. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t‐tests (α = 0.05).ResultsSignificant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the BFS, surface roughness, and hardness between the 3D‐printed and milled groups, before and after thermal aging. Overall, the CAD‐CAM milled ceramic group had superior strength, surface roughness, and hardness when compared to all other groups (p < 0.001), except for surface roughness after thermal aging, which was similar in all groups (p = 0.063). Within each group, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in surface roughness after thermal aging. BFS values of 3D‐printed materials were statistically similar. In terms of surface roughness, Formlabs specimens displayed the highest value before and after thermal cycling, when compared to other 3D‐printed materials. Regarding hardness, the VarseoSmile Crown plus group demonstrated the highest values compared to other 3D‐printed materials, before and after thermal cycling.ConclusionPermanent 3D‐printed resins have lower strength than CAD‐CAM milled materials. 3D‐printed permanent resin materials exhibited high roughness and comparable hardness to CAD‐CAM materials. Thermal aging negatively affected the properties of 3D‐printed permanent crowns. Owing to the low strength of 3D‐printed permanent resins, they may not be recommended for clinical practice until further improvements in flexural strength are made to meet clinical standards.