Architectural CADD Rankings, Ratings, and Reviews
  
Criteria
 

Just some of the factors considered in the ratings :

Anyway, all these factors were considered in the ratings of each program. We are currently looking at the new versions of each which may help them move up or down relative to others in their same market. Remember that all the various CADD packages (47 used in architecture alone) are continually comming out with new versions and new features, so just because there is a new version we cannot assume it will go up.

For architectural CADD, for firms both small and large, and design or production, the state of the art has been raised considerably, with most such tools having automatic roof and stair generators, automatic sections and elevations, enormous architectural symbol libraries, and wall/floor slab/ceiling entities with far greater architectural intelligence than even just 2 years ago.


We are not economically connected with any of these design software companies in any way. We sell nothing, other than advice, in the form of consulting, writing, lecture seminars, tutorials and videotapes.

There are some 15 different lists, each with a different set of criteria and priorities for that particular type of user. For instance, software for non-technical home owners needs to be simple, easy, and cheap (besides being good), which is inherently going to differ with the needs of, say, a Mechanical Engineer, who needs links to CNC machining and rapid prototyping and flexibility (and can tollerate higher costs).

The various lists are simply the order in which we would suggest software to firms of that type on a professional consulting basis. In most cases many other factors come into play, and the list helps to narrow down to two or three appropriate packages to then evaluate for other criteria for the best fit (such as what software, if any, do the existing people in the firm know, what systems do they own, what way do they like to design, who do they need to collaborate with, and so on).

Smaller firms do not have the resources to maintain in-house training centers for the stream of new people continually comming and going from their offices as larger firms could. Thus, AutoCAD (for which there are training centers everywhere) or easier to use software would inherently rate higher for such firms than others such as Cadvance, Microstation, or Architrion (unless a particular region happens to have a great Value Added Reseller (VAR) with a real training center). Thus a program such as Arris, or Cadvance is usually going to rate higher in larger firms, however, with some types of large firms, such as Architectural/Engineering firms, or Mechanical Engineers, other factors then come into play, such as shared common database collaboration (where AutoCAD and Microstation excel), or rapid prototyping and CNC tooling (where ProEngineer excels), which, in turn, would push other programs lower in those categories.

We must remain independant of each of these companies, thus we cannot afford to Give away on the Web the most current reviews and analysis which support us to continue this service. We do recieve evaluation software and complimentary training from most of the CADD developers.