Every tool is scored from 1 to 5 on the same seven criteria. The seven scores add up to a total out of 35, and the total sets the order. Every score comes with a written reason and a source you can check yourself.
Last reviewed
The rules
Criteria first. They are fixed before any tool is scored, and every tool is scored on all seven.
Equal weight. No criterion counts more than another in the total; if one matters more to you, sort the comparison table by it in your head, or use the use-case picks.
Checkable claims. Prices are quoted only where the vendor publishes them, with the month we read them. Where a price or limit is not public, the entry says so and links to where to check.
No invented numbers. There are no user ratings, review counts or market-share figures on this site, because we cannot verify them.
Limits stated plainly. Every entry lists where the tool falls short and who it is a poor fit for.
Editors and workspaces apart. A design editor draws the board; a workspace keeps, shows and shares it. They are ranked in separate lists, so a viewer is never ranked against an editor.
What the scores mean
Score
Meaning
5
Best in class on this criterion; nothing important missing.
4
Strong, with a minor gap you can work around.
3
Adequate for typical projects; a real gap for some.
2
Weak: plan around it before you commit.
1
Missing or a serious obstacle for most readers.
The seven criteria
Criterion 1
Cost and licensing
What does it cost to use it the way you need, and what does the licence allow?
The price of the edition you would actually need, whether that price is published, and what the licence lets you do: commercial use, board size or layer limits, whether you own a perpetual licence or rent a subscription, and whether your files stay usable if you stop paying.
A 5 looks like
Free for every use, with no board, layer or commercial limits, and a licence that cannot be withdrawn (an open-source licence, for example).
A 1 looks like
Paid subscription with no published price, or a free tier so limited it only suits evaluation.
For a workspace
The price of the plan a person or a team needs to share, version and review boards, and whether a free plan is usable for real projects.
Evidence
The vendor's own pricing or licence page, linked from each entry. Where a vendor does not publish a price, the entry says so and links to where you can ask.
Criterion 2
Learning curve
How quickly can someone new to the tool get a simple two-layer board to a fab?
How much there is to learn before you can produce a correct board: the interface, how parts and footprints are managed, and how much official documentation and community help there is when you get stuck.
A 5 looks like
A newcomer can follow the official getting-started material and order a simple board on the first day.
A 1 looks like
Expect formal training or weeks of practice before the first board is right.
For a workspace
How quickly a teammate, client or reviewer who has never installed CAD can open a board, find what changed and leave a useful answer.
Evidence
The official getting-started documentation and tutorials, how many steps the vendor's own guide takes to reach fabrication files, and the size of public help forums.
Criterion 3
Library and part support
Can you find the parts you need, with correct symbols, footprints and 3D models, and link them to real suppliers?
The size and quality of the built-in libraries, how easy it is to make or import a missing part, and whether parts link to manufacturer part numbers, stock and price at a distributor.
A 5 looks like
Large, maintained libraries with 3D models, simple part creation, and supplier data attached to parts.
A 1 looks like
Small libraries, so most parts must be drawn by hand, with no supplier link.
For a workspace
How well the workspace shows a board's bill of materials and lets you discover boards or parts by component, so you can reuse what already works.
Evidence
The vendor's library documentation, the official library repositories where they are public, and the part-search features described in the documentation.
Criterion 4
Board complexity
How far can the tool go: layer count, high-speed rules, differential pairs, length tuning, rigid-flex?
The hardest board you could sensibly design in it: number of copper layers, constraint and design-rule management, interactive routing (push-and-shove, differential pairs, length matching) and support for advanced stack-ups.
A 5 looks like
Handles dense multilayer, high-speed and controlled-impedance boards with a full constraint system.
A 1 looks like
Comfortable only with simple one- or two-layer boards.
For a workspace
How complete the workspace's view of a complex board is: every sheet, every layer, the 3D model, and whether some uploads render only in part.
Evidence
The feature lists and manuals the vendor publishes, and the complexity of public projects made with the tool (see Real boards made with each tool).
Criterion 5
Output for fabrication
Does it produce everything a board house and an assembler need, in the formats they ask for?
Gerber (RS-274X or X2), drill files, pick-and-place, bill of materials and assembly drawings, and newer single-file formats such as IPC-2581 and ODB++. Also: whether design-rule checks can be set to a fab's published capabilities.
A 5 looks like
Gerber X2, drill, BOM, pick-and-place, assembly drawings and IPC-2581 or ODB++, with DRC you can set to your fab's rules.
A 1 looks like
Exports only to one manufacturer, or leaves you to convert files yourself.
For a workspace
Whether a released version can be found, compared and handed to a fab or assembler from the workspace: the exact files that were reviewed, not a copy someone renamed.
Evidence
The export options in the vendor's manual, and the files published alongside public projects made in the tool.
Criterion 6
File portability
If you change tools, or share with someone who uses another one, can your design come with you?
Whether the native file format is open and documented, which other tools import it, which formats the tool itself imports, and whether you keep working files on your own disk or only in a vendor's cloud.
A 5 looks like
Open, text-based native files on your own disk, plus importers for the formats others use.
A 1 looks like
Files exist only in a vendor's cloud or in a closed format no other tool reads.
For a workspace
Whether the workspace keeps your native project files as they are, so you can download them and continue in the desktop editor, or converts them into something only it can read.
Evidence
The vendor's documentation on file formats, import and export, and the importers listed by other tools.
Criterion 7
Collaboration
Can a team, a client or a reviewer work on the board with you, and can you see who changed what?
Version history, comparing revisions, sharing with people who do not own the tool, comments and review, and access control. This is where most desktop editors stop and the workspaces in Beyond the editor begin.
A 5 looks like
Built-in version history, visual comparison, review and comments, and access control by person and by board.
A 1 looks like
Files on a disk with no history, shared by email.
For a workspace
The same: version history, browser viewing, access control, review, and whether AI assistants can work with the project under your permission.
Evidence
The collaboration and cloud features the vendor documents, and whether they need a separate product or plan.
How tools are judged
Each tool is read against its own published material: the product and pricing pages, the manual, release notes and licence. Board complexity and fabrication output are also checked against public projects made with the tool, listed in Real boards made with each tool, so you can open the same files and judge the output yourself.
Every score and every price is checked again at each review, and the date at the top of each page is the date of the last full check. When a new version changes a score, the score, its reason and the date change together.