Top CAD Systems Ranked

[matt]

This article is old by now, but there's really nothing like it out there, so I think it's still valid and worth reading, It turns out that this is one of the most popular links that people click on from my blog.

The systems they ranked were :

- IronCAD
- Catia
- ZW3D
- Creo
- Solid Edge
- Solidworks
- Onshape
- Inventor

Read how your favorites fared:


Dezignstuff blog: https://dezignstuff.com/tech-nets-9-cad-systems-ranked/
Original Tech Net article: http://www.tecnetinc.com/Worst%20to%20B ... %20-1.html

[DanPihlaja]

I read the article....good stuff there.....and I don't have a lot to say about it because I really only have experience with CATIA V5, Solidworks and NX on that list.

But my alarms go off when someone who is selling a product rates said product against other products that they do not sell. Pretty biased....of course they aren't going to list their product in a negative light. Seems more like an ad campaign that they tried to spin off as an actual ranking by making good claims about competitors. But then, I am not a businessman.....so I could be entirely wrong (I have been wrong before.....and this is generally what it looks like).

Regarding the undated-ness of the article....I am guessing it is pre-2007. This is because of what they said about CATIA V5 and Boeing. In about 2005 or 2006 (Possibly 2007, but I can't remember which year) Ford switched entirely to CATIA V5 as their CAD package of choice. They were previously I-DEAS, and then I-DEAS merged with Unigraphiocs to become NX, which was bought out by Seimens. Siemens was the primary supplier to GM and the rumor mill going around our shop was that Siemens and GM were in bed together and Ford didn't want GM's sloppy seconds.

I am guessing that, if this was AFTER Ford started using CATIA V5, that they would have mentioned it.

OK, I just re-read that article, and they specifically say, "...Catia 6 has been out for over 6 years...". And since Catia 6 was released in 2008, that means that the article is probably from late 2014.....so never mind.... but I am leaving the above paragraph because I still wanted to share the history.

[matt]

...

OK, I just re-read that article, and they specifically say, "...Catia 6 has been out for over 6 years...". And since Catia 6 was released in 2008, that means that the article is probably from late 2014.....so never mind.... but I am leaving the above paragraph because I still wanted to share the history.

It has Onshape on the list, which puts it 2015 or later. I'm sure it's at least a little bit biased, but what isn't? But, you just can't find real comparisons in the CAD industry. This is the closest I've ever seen, which was why I thought it was interesting.

[DanPihlaja]

...

OK, I just re-read that article, and they specifically say, "...Catia 6 has been out for over 6 years...". And since Catia 6 was released in 2008, that means that the article is probably from late 2014.....so never mind.... but I am leaving the above paragraph because I still wanted to share the history.

It has Onshape on the list, which puts it 2015 or later. I'm sure it's at least a little bit biased, but what isn't? But, you just can't find real comparisons in the CAD industry. This is the closest I've ever seen, which was why I thought it was interesting.

Yeah, I agree...I haven't seen anything better either. Its just thinking about the bias is all.

[MJuric]

This article is old by now, but there's really nothing like it out there, so I think it's still valid and worth reading, It turns out that this is one of the most popular links that people click on from my blog.

The systems they ranked were :

- IronCAD
- Catia
- ZW3D
- Creo
- Solid Edge
- Solidworks
- Onshape
- Inventor

Read how your favorites fared:


Dezignstuff blog: https://dezignstuff.com/tech-nets-9-cad-systems-ranked/
Original Tech Net article: http://www.tecnetinc.com/Worst%20to%20B ... %20-1.html

I think it's really difficult to get a reasonable reliable comparison between these systems. You really only know the "Gotcha's" of a system after using it for months even years in many cases. How many people have "Recently" used eight different systems enough to have some mastery with it? Not many, if any.

[jcapriotti]

It's too broad. It should be "The best CAD system for surfacing" "The best CAD for machine design" etc.

[HerrTick]

NX is only suitable if you need to do more, better.

[HerrTick]

SolidWorks lets you play. Creo lets you play doctor. NX lets you play god.

[zwei]

I always try to stick my hand out of all this CAD ranking, but thought i should chime in once in a while...
Ranking all these system is really difficult, they had their pros and cons, and it is really hard to get an unbiased view and really depend on situation.

Take CREO and SOLIDWORKS as example.
Some might say CREO is much better than SOLIDWORKS if YOU HAD BEEN PROPERLY TRAINED.
https://design-engine.com/creo-vs-solid ... is-better/
But a lot of time that is not the case, and a lot of company are not willing to send people for proper training.
In this situation, is CREO still better?

A lot of time user experience is largely depend on their FIRST CAD system.
I had used SOLIDWORKS for about 4years+ since my uni time, and pick up CREO last year because of project need, and really struggle hard to understand it.
It had been 1 years since I first started using CREO and I still cringe at it most of the time.

Unless someone had fully master and understand all the CAD system, I wont really believe these ranking, not to mention there are external factors like VAR support, licensing, knowledge base/forum, etc.

[Roasted By John]

Unless someone had fully master and understand all the CAD system, I wont really believe these ranking, not to mention there are external factors like VAR support, licensing, knowledge base/forum, etc.

Plus all rankings are biased - meaning "Whatever the person is comfortable with or good at" will always trump the other software... I still think Inventor is second to SolidWorks, isn't that right @Frederick_Law

[SPerman]

The timing is also critical to a review like this. Someone reading a review of 2018 would think SW was top notch. If they purchased 2019 or 2020, they may be sorely disappointed by the software's performance.

[SPARK_Bill]

I've used all sorts of CAD systems since the late 1980's. Started using a chisel and hammer to get geometry to appear on the screen with Computervision CADDs. Since then I've used all on the list excepting ZW3D, and IronCAD. Believe I tried an IronCAD demo, but then I'm old and may not be recalling that correctly. All of the CAD systems do something well and others not so well. Catia and Pro/E can make really clean robust surface geometry, but then you have to make a 2D drawing. SolidWorks does a lot things sorta okay. Biggest thing SolidWorks has going for it is the number of companies using it. As a consultant that is hugh. Onshape is coming on strong. Biggest concern is the new owner PTC. I don't get why anyone uses Inventor. My conclusion is if someone took best feature of each CAD system and made it work they'd really have it over the competition. All the other CAD software companies would be left fighting for last place as they have for years. Conclusion: It's a tight race for worst CAD system out there. Upside: keeps CAD jockeys employed.

[KQuigley]

Honestly, what a load of nonsense. ZW3D described as the ultimate system? ZW3D aka Varimatrix aka VX. I used this for 3 years. Sure it had some elements that were useful, but as an all round tool it was/is buggy, under featured in basic areas and the kernel created issues moving data to other systems. The only scenario it was perfect for was packaging design with blow moulded bottles and injection mould tooling. It was and is a specialist tool with a very peculiar file management system.

As for the rest of it, well, comparisons are absolutely pointless. You select a system based on benchmarks against the actual work you do, combined with the skillsets of your team. Or you should.

There is no one ideal system. There are systems that suit specific processes, budgets and requirements. CAD folks are good at deriding systems they either know well and hate using, or systems they don’t know but are used by others.

Each system has merits. Let your team choose the one that enables productivity. Anything else is manager vanity.

[RichGergely]

If a vendor is selling CAD products and then does a list of the best and worst CAD products on the market it ends up being no more than a click bait meaningless comparison to try to improve sales.

Would you take a comparison of family saloon cars on the market as a useful guide if it was written by your local Ford main dealer????

[matt]

If a vendor is selling CAD products and then does a list of the best and worst CAD products on the market it ends up being no more than a click bait meaningless comparison to try to improve sales.

Would you take a comparison of family saloon cars on the market as a useful guide if it was written by your local Ford main dealer????

I wouldn't take it as the only input, but I would listen to what he has to say. I don't think it should be completely written off. Understand the biases for sure, but don't let them blind you to what is being said. It's a point of comparison. How many other points of comparison do you have between these products?

[Jim Elias]

My problem with the reviewer's approach is that it's very much centered around "how much time do I need to model this isolated, relatively-simple blocky thing that already exists and I've already had XXX amount of time to practice at." It doesn't take the whole design process into account, nor does it consider the needs of those of us who are regularly having to work on multiple possible variants of a complex design all in parallel.

Plus, there's the economic environment. ZW3D (very much an NX clone) does offer features in the base package that cost mucho extra with NX. But my clients do not want ZW3D files, and there's nothing about ZW3D that would really make it worth the time for me to try and proselytize for it. Ironcad has some nifty features, but again, nothing where I am going to get my work done in appreciably less time. So if you're an inventor or craftsperson working in an isolated structure which you own anyway -- sure, good deal. But if you're interfacing with other infrastructures and/or making personnel investments, it's better to go with one of the regulars.

A lot of time user experience is largely depend on their FIRST CAD system.

Totally true. And it depends on the level of designer experience. Mid-range systems are usually the better choice for new designers because their paradigms (UI, etc.) are very much geared towards accessibility -- but I suspect that this is always at the expense of speed and processing ability.

It had been 1 years since I first started using CREO and I still cringe at it most of the time.

For a user coming from SW/SE/IV, Creo and NX (and I assume Catia) are indeed cringeworthy while you're dealing with the early conceptual phases of a project. As a project of considerable complexity moves forward, the "mid-range" systems require more and more workarounds, while the Big'uns dutifully crunch up what you throw at them. There is no system I've seen that does both of these things in ideal fashion.

I don't get why anyone uses Inventor.

Because it's there, the pricing is ok and it will do what anyone needs from a system at that price level. It wouldn't be my first choice either, but I would be hard-pressed to argue why a business owner shouldn't go with AD if the deal was good. For better (read: pricing accessibility) or worse (read: lots of mediocrity in development), CAD has become a commodity.

[Ry-guy]

...CAD has become a commodity.

About 10 years back I would agree with your final statement. Today, I look at things more broadly. If your 3D data is only being used to generate a 2D drawing that is then exported to a pdf then I agree. But on the other hand, if your 3D data is extended and becomes the master data that is used throughout your organization and moves through process flows then CAD is not a commodity.

Your choice of CAD then becomes not one based soley on CAD feature but one based on the CAD tools ability to apply high-fidelity meta-data.

This sounds like marketing bull-$hit! But it's not.

I am talking about CAD tools that allow to add intelligence to your model so that other systems down line and sometimes up the line can leverage this new data type in their processes. What I am talking about is model-based definition (MBD). CAD tools that include the ability to define, share and publish this high-fidelity meta-data is what should be driving decisions for organizations.

Man, I sound like a PLM person now!

But let’s be honest. If your choice of CAD tool is not providing you with the toolsets to succeed/compete in the future, why pay them maintenance, reverence and patronage?