Are Ceramic IPS e.max veneers as good as porcelien veneers?

E-max veneers can be more natural looking than porcelain veneers. They are bonded to the teeth and very durable. E-max can fracture if under enough pressure. But if they are done properly, they are as good as porcelain veneers structurally and can appear more natural.

Since I have done over 10.000 veneers,  here is my take.
It depends on the preparation. If the tooth is prepared more, a stronger substructure (emax) is better.
If the tooth is prepped in the 0.8 mm range, feldsphatic porcalain veneers look better. BUT in any case, the lab technician must be awesome.

Depends what properties you want to have. Feldspathic porcelain veneers are more realistic and more detailed as they’re made in layers, but weaker than IPS e.max. While IPS e.max (Lithium Disilicate) are pressed glass ceramic and made/milled from one piece. A very popular example of an IPS e.max veneer is Lumineers. Appearance wise, porcelain can look much realistic and detailed than e.max veneers. BUT, e.max veneers are thinner and stronger than porcelain. Not saying e.max veneers don’t look real or great, but they simply just don’t look as detailed as porcelain. Think of them as HDTVs, porcelain veneers are 1080P while e.max veneers are just standard definition. If all you care is to have white teeth, then e.max is the way to go. They’re stronger and more durable than porcelain veneers. If you want detailed tooth appearances and like different shades of white/grey in every single tooth, then porcelain will give you that. Another major difference between porcelain and e.max veneers is how much of your tooth will be ground down/shaven (prepped). If you choose porcelain veneers, then more tooth structure will be taken away than with e.max. IPS e.max very minimal reduction is required and in some cases no prep or reduction at all.