Best CAD Collaboration Software in 2026: Compare Sharing, Editing, Comments and Review

CAD collaboration used to mean sending someone a drawing.

That sounds obvious, but it explains a lot about the way engineering teams still work.

One person finishes a drawing. They save it. Someone exports a PDF. Another person receives an email. A reviewer writes a list of comments. The designer makes changes. A new file is created. Someone else downloads it. A client asks whether it is the latest version.

Then somebody discovers that they have been reviewing the previous revision.

The problem is not that engineers don't know how to share files.

The problem is that a CAD file contains much more than geometry.

It contains decisions.

It contains changes.

It contains questions.

It contains approvals.

It contains feedback from clients and consultants.

It contains the history of why something was drawn the way it was.

When collaboration is reduced to sending files around, much of that information ends up outside the drawing.

Email contains the discussion.

PDFs contain snapshots.

File names contain revision numbers.

Someone's memory contains the reason for the change.

That is why CAD collaboration software has become such an important category.

The best modern platforms are trying to bring the drawing, the people working on it and the conversation around it into one place.

Some do this extremely well.

Some provide excellent cloud storage and sharing but remain fundamentally file-based.

Some support real-time collaboration.

Some are primarily designed for 3D mechanical engineering.

Some are excellent for traditional 2D drafting but have very little built-in collaboration.

And some are designed specifically around browser-based 2D collaboration.

This guide compares the major approaches.

The goal isn't to declare one CAD application the winner for everyone. There isn't one.

The useful question is more specific:

What kind of collaboration does each CAD platform actually provide?

Can someone simply view a drawing?

Can they comment?

Can they edit?

Can two people work at the same time?

Can a client open a drawing without installing CAD software?

Can a reviewer raise an issue and later mark it resolved?

Can you share a link instead of emailing a DWG?

Can the team see the current version without asking which file is latest?

And perhaps most importantly:

Does collaboration happen inside the design, or around the design?

The CAD collaboration problem

Most engineering companies have some version of this folder.

Subdivision.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_A.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_B.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_B_client_comments.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_C.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_C_final.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_C_final_updated.dwg
Subdivision_Rev_C_final_approved.dwg

The filenames are funny until you're working on a project with twelve consultants.

Then they're not funny anymore.

The more people involved in a project, the more difficult it becomes to keep everyone aligned.

A typical project might include:

• an architect
• a civil engineer
• a structural engineer
• a surveyor
• a geotechnical engineer
• a services engineer
• a contractor
• a project manager
• a client
• a council or consenting authority
• a quantity surveyor
• suppliers

Most of these people don't need the same permissions.

The structural engineer might need to edit.

The architect might need to edit.

The client may only need to view.

The project manager may need to comment.

The contractor may need to measure and review.

A consultant might need to inspect the latest drawing but shouldn't be able to alter the geometry.

This is where the traditional idea of "one CAD licence per person" starts to break down.

Collaboration isn't simply about giving everyone editing access.

It is about giving each participant the right level of access.

What is CAD collaboration software?

CAD collaboration software is CAD software that provides tools for multiple people to work around the same design without relying entirely on manually exchanged files.

That can include several different capabilities.

1. File sharing

The simplest level is the ability to upload or share a CAD file.

This is useful.

It is also the minimum level of collaboration.

2. Browser viewing

A reviewer can open a drawing through a browser without installing the desktop CAD application.

This is particularly useful for clients, contractors and occasional reviewers.

3. View-only access

A person can inspect the current drawing without changing the geometry.

This is one of the most useful collaboration features because many project participants don't need editing access.

4. Comments

Users can leave feedback directly against a drawing or shared view.

This prevents drawing-specific conversations from disappearing into email.

5. Issue resolution

A useful review system needs more than comments.

A reviewer should be able to raise an issue.

The designer should respond.

The issue should eventually be marked resolved.

That creates a simple workflow:

Open → Discuss → Change → Review → Resolve

6. Real-time collaboration

Multiple people can work in the same design at the same time.

This is the closest CAD gets to the Google Docs or Figma experience.

7. Version history

The system records previous states of the design.

Instead of relying on filenames, the project has a history.

8. Branching

Some platforms allow alternative design versions to be developed independently and later merged or promoted.

This is particularly interesting for engineering because it allows experimentation without creating another folder full of copies.

The five levels of CAD collaboration

It helps to stop thinking about collaboration as a yes/no feature.

There are actually several levels.

Level 1: Send the file

The traditional approach.

You send a DWG, DXF, STEP or another CAD file.

The recipient opens it using their own software.

This works.

It also creates the biggest opportunity for confusion.

There may be several copies.

The recipient may edit the wrong one.

Comments are usually separate from the design.

There is no guarantee everyone is looking at the same version.

Level 2: Share a cloud file

The file lives in a cloud storage system.

People access it from somewhere such as a project folder or document-management platform.

This solves some problems.

It creates a central location.

It makes file access easier.

It can improve version management.

But the workflow can still be fundamentally file-oriented.

The team is collaborating on a file rather than inside a shared design environment.

Level 3: Share a view

This is a significant improvement.

A designer can create a link.

The recipient opens it in a browser.

They can inspect the design without installing the CAD application.

Autodesk, for example, provides Shared Views that allow people to view and comment on shared representations through Autodesk Viewer. Recipients don't necessarily need the originating Autodesk product installed.

This is excellent for client review.

It is also useful for contractors and other stakeholders who don't need to edit the source model.

But a shared view is not the same thing as simultaneous editing.

Level 4: Review and comment

The next step is connecting feedback to the design.

A reviewer sees a problem.

They create a comment.

Another person responds.

The issue can be tracked.

Eventually it is resolved.

This is where collaboration starts becoming a workflow rather than simply a sharing mechanism.

Level 5: Shared editing

At the highest level, multiple people work on the same project.

Changes appear to collaborators as they happen.

Onshape is a strong example of this model. Its current documentation describes simultaneous editing, real-time changes, granular permissions and users with view-only access working in the same workspace as editors.

This is a very different experience from emailing DWGs.

CAD collaboration comparison

The following table is intentionally broader than a simple "which CAD is best?" list.

The important distinction is between sharing, review, comments, view-only access and simultaneous editing.

The table needs one important qualification.

"Collaboration" means different things in different products.

For example, Autodesk has built strong sharing and review capabilities into several products. AutoCAD can share drawings for editing or view-only access, while Autodesk's broader web and Docs ecosystem supports markup and multi-user review workflows.

Onshape takes a more cloud-native approach. Its documentation explicitly describes simultaneous editing, real-time changes, comments and granular sharing permissions.

These are different approaches to the same problem.

That distinction matters when choosing software.

AutoCAD collaboration: much better than simply sending DWGs

AutoCAD remains one of the most important CAD applications in the world, particularly for 2D DWG workflows.

It would be wrong to describe AutoCAD as a desktop-only application with no meaningful collaboration.

The current AutoCAD ecosystem provides web access, sharing, view-only workflows and markup capabilities.

AutoCAD can share drawings stored in Autodesk Docs for editing, multi-user markup or viewing. Drawings outside Autodesk Docs can also be shared as copies or view-only links.

That gives AutoCAD a useful collaboration stack.

View-only sharing

This is particularly useful when sending drawings to clients.

The recipient can open a drawing without being given editing permission.

Autodesk's documentation specifically describes view-only sharing where the drawing cannot be modified or saved.

Edit sharing

AutoCAD can also provide edit access under supported workflows.

For files stored in Autodesk Docs, users with appropriate permissions can modify the actual drawing.

Markups

AutoCAD has also moved further into collaborative markup.

The 2026.1 release added workflows that bring web markups into desktop AutoCAD, while Autodesk Docs provides multi-user markup workflows.

Where AutoCAD remains different

AutoCAD is still fundamentally a mature general-purpose CAD ecosystem.

Its collaboration capabilities have been added across desktop, web, Docs and Viewer experiences.

That can be powerful.

It can also mean more concepts for a small team to understand.

You may be dealing with the CAD application, Autodesk Docs, shared views, permissions and different kinds of web access depending on exactly how the project is stored and shared.

For companies already invested heavily in AutoCAD and Autodesk infrastructure, that ecosystem can make a lot of sense.

For a small 2D team looking specifically for simple browser-based simultaneous collaboration, it is worth comparing the workflow rather than simply comparing feature checklists.

Onshape collaboration: the cloud-native benchmark

If the question is "Which CAD platform has taken collaboration most seriously from the beginning?", Onshape belongs near the top of the conversation.

Onshape was designed around cloud-based CAD rather than taking an old desktop file model and adding cloud storage afterwards.

Its collaboration system includes simultaneous editing.

Multiple users can work in the same workspace.

Users can see changes in real time.

The platform also provides different permissions.

A person can have edit access.

Another person can have view access.

Another can have comment access.

Onshape's documentation states that view-only users can occupy the same workspace as editors and see changes in real time without being able to edit the workspace.

That is an important distinction.

A client doesn't necessarily need to become an editor just because they need to participate in the project.

Comments

Onshape also has a mature commenting system.

Comments can be attached to particular design entities, and users can mention people, reply to discussions and assign comments.

This is much closer to a project-management workflow than simply attaching a PDF to an email.

View-only users

Onshape supports view-only users and sharing permissions.

This is particularly useful for external participants.

A supplier may need to inspect a model.

A customer may need to review it.

A manager may need to see the current design.

They don't all need editing rights.

Onshape's permission model reflects that reality.

The catch

Onshape is primarily a 3D mechanical/product design platform.

That matters.

If your team is doing complex mechanical design, assemblies and parametric 3D modelling, Onshape is an obvious platform to investigate.

If your work is primarily 2D site plans, civil drawings, subdivision layouts or engineering drafting, the comparison becomes more nuanced.

You shouldn't choose a CAD platform purely because it has the best collaboration technology.

The CAD itself still has to fit the work.

Fusion collaboration

Fusion sits somewhere between CAD, manufacturing and cloud collaboration.

Autodesk describes Fusion as providing tools to comment on, share and reserve designs. Comments and markups can be made in Fusion and through the Fusion web client. Designs can be shared with stakeholders so they can view them in the web client or open them in Fusion, depending on access.

This makes Fusion particularly relevant to product development teams.

A designer might create the model.

A manufacturing engineer reviews it.

A customer checks a concept.

A production team works from the approved design.

The cloud environment connects these participants.

Design reservation

Fusion's design reservation system is worth understanding because it highlights an important distinction.

Not every collaborative CAD system allows unrestricted simultaneous editing of everything.

Sometimes the platform deliberately controls who can modify a design.

That can prevent conflicts.

For a manufacturing team with complex linked designs, this may be preferable to having everyone change everything simultaneously.

Collaboration is therefore not automatically better when it means unlimited editing.

The right workflow depends on the project.

SOLIDWORKS and 3DEXPERIENCE

SOLIDWORKS has traditionally been one of the dominant mechanical CAD platforms.

Its collaboration story is increasingly tied to the broader 3DEXPERIENCE platform.

This gives SOLIDWORKS users access to a much larger ecosystem for data management, sharing, review and collaboration.

The important distinction is between SOLIDWORKS as a CAD application and 3DEXPERIENCE as a collaboration and data platform.

For a company already using SOLIDWORKS, this can be a powerful combination.

For someone evaluating CAD from scratch, it is worth looking at the entire ecosystem rather than asking whether the desktop application itself behaves like a browser-based collaborative editor.

Autodesk Inventor and Shared Views

Inventor is another example of a powerful desktop CAD system that has added online collaboration around designs.

Autodesk's Shared Views feature allows a visual representation of a model or design to be shared online.

A recipient can view and comment without having the Autodesk product installed.

That is extremely useful for design review.

Imagine sending a customer a link rather than a large CAD file.

The customer opens the link.

They inspect the model.

They leave a comment.

The designer receives a notification.

The designer can respond.

The conversation remains associated with the shared view.

Autodesk also provides tools to reply to and resolve comments on shared views.

This is a good example of why "does this CAD application collaborate?" is too simplistic a question.

Inventor absolutely supports useful collaboration.

But its collaboration model is not identical to Onshape's simultaneous editing model.

BricsCAD

BricsCAD is particularly relevant for teams that live in the DWG ecosystem and want an alternative to AutoCAD.

Its biggest advantage is that it remains closely aligned with familiar DWG workflows.

For many companies, this is more important than having every modern collaboration feature.

A team may have thousands of existing drawings.

Templates.

Blocks.

Standards.

Scripts.

Customisations.

External references.

Training.

Changing CAD software is therefore not simply a question of feature count.

Collaboration needs to fit the existing data ecosystem.

BricsCAD can make sense for teams prioritising DWG compatibility and traditional CAD workflows.

If real-time, browser-native collaboration is the primary reason you're changing software, however, you should compare the complete workflow carefully.

DraftSight

DraftSight has a strong position in 2D drafting, particularly for teams looking for a familiar DWG environment without moving entirely into a new CAD paradigm.

The collaboration question is different.

DraftSight's strength is primarily drafting rather than being a browser-first real-time collaboration environment.

That doesn't make it a bad CAD system.

It simply means that teams should distinguish between:

"Can I share this drawing?"

and

"Can we work together inside the same drawing?"

Those are very different requirements.

QCAD

QCAD is an interesting comparison because it demonstrates how good traditional 2D CAD can still be without attempting to solve every collaboration problem.

It is focused on 2D CAD.

For an individual user, that can be exactly what is required.

You don't necessarily need real-time collaboration when you're drawing alone.

The problem appears when the project expands.

Once you need a client, reviewer or colleague to participate, you're likely to introduce external tools for sharing and communication.

That can be perfectly acceptable.

It just means the collaboration layer is outside the CAD application.

LibreCAD

LibreCAD takes a similar approach.

It is a free and open-source 2D CAD application.

For individual drafting, that can be compelling.

But it isn't designed around the modern collaborative workspace concept.

There is no native equivalent of several people opening the same online drawing, leaving contextual comments and resolving review issues as part of one integrated workflow.

Again, this isn't necessarily a criticism.

LibreCAD solves a different problem.

It is a good reminder that free CAD and collaborative CAD are separate categories.

FreeCAD

FreeCAD is another important open-source option.

It has a large community and a broad range of engineering capabilities.

Its architecture is fundamentally different from browser-first collaborative CAD systems.

Teams can certainly collaborate around FreeCAD files using external systems.

But that isn't the same as having collaboration built directly into the design environment.

For individual engineers and technically capable teams, FreeCAD can be extremely attractive.

For distributed teams wanting built-in real-time review, the comparison is different.

Shapr3D

Shapr3D has become popular among designers who want a modern 3D modelling experience across desktop and tablet devices.

Its strength is the modelling experience.

It is particularly interesting for designers who value mobility and direct modelling.

Again, collaboration depends on what you mean by collaboration.

Sharing a model is one thing.

Reviewing a model is another.

Two people editing the same model simultaneously is another.

A CAD comparison should always separate those capabilities.

View-only CAD is more important than it sounds

This is probably the most underestimated collaboration feature.

Consider a small engineering company.

There are four designers.

But the project involves ten other people.

The client needs to see the design.

The project manager needs to review progress.

The contractor needs to inspect dimensions.

The surveyor needs to check boundaries.

The structural engineer needs to review interfaces.

The geotechnical engineer needs to inspect retaining walls.

The quantity surveyor needs to understand the scope.

Only four people actually need to edit.

Why should all fourteen people be treated as CAD editors?

They shouldn't.

A good collaboration system separates participation from editing.

View-only versus editable access

Here is the difference in practical terms.

The exact permissions vary by platform.

Onshape, for example, separates view and edit permissions and provides additional controls for copying, exporting, linking and resharing.

That kind of granularity is important for professional engineering.

Why clients should not need a CAD licence

Imagine a client asking:

"Can you show me the latest site plan?"

The traditional answer is often:

"I'll export a PDF."

Then the design changes.

Now the PDF is outdated.

The client asks another question.

Another PDF is produced.

The problem isn't the PDF.

PDFs are useful.

The problem is using PDFs as the only way a client can inspect a live project.

A browser-based view-only link can be much simpler.

The client clicks a link.

The current drawing opens.

They don't need to install CAD.

They don't need to understand layers.

They don't need a full drafting licence.

They just need to review the design.

That is a much better collaboration experience for non-CAD users.

Comments are where CAD collaboration becomes useful

A comment such as:

Move wall 300 mm.

is not particularly helpful when it arrives by email.

Which wall?

Which drawing?

Which revision?

Which side?

What was the reason?

A contextual CAD comment can answer most of those questions automatically because the comment is associated with the drawing.

The reviewer can point to the relevant geometry.

The designer knows exactly what is being discussed.

The discussion stays with the project.

That sounds like a small improvement.

Across hundreds of review comments, it isn't.

Comments versus markups

These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not always the same.

A markup might be a circle, arrow, cloud or annotation drawn over a design.

A comment is a conversation.

The best review systems combine the two.

A reviewer circles an area.

They write the issue.

The designer responds.

The reviewer checks the revised design.

The issue is resolved.

That gives the team both visual context and written history.

Autodesk's Shared Views, for example, support comments, replies and resolving comment threads.

Onshape similarly supports comments, mentions, replies and assigning comments to users.

What does "resolve" actually mean?

This feature deserves more attention.

Without resolution, comments become a permanent list.

Imagine a project with 146 comments.

Some are current.

Some were fixed three months ago.

Some are obsolete.

Some were duplicates.

The reviewer needs to know which ones remain open.

A proper issue workflow should allow a comment to move from:

Open

to

In progress

to

Resolved

or at minimum:

Open → Resolved

That gives the team a current list of outstanding issues.

It also preserves the historical discussion.

That distinction is important.

Resolving a comment should normally hide it from the active list, not erase the fact that it ever existed.

CAD review should feel like a conversation

The old review process often looks like this:

1. Export PDF.
2. Email PDF.
3. Reviewer downloads PDF.
4. Reviewer marks PDF.
5. Reviewer emails PDF back.
6. Designer opens PDF.
7. Designer opens CAD.
8. Designer makes changes.
9. Designer exports new PDF.
10. Reviewer checks again.

Every step creates opportunities for friction.

A collaborative review workflow can be much shorter.

1. Reviewer opens the live drawing.
2. Reviewer comments.
3. Designer sees the issue.
4. Designer changes the drawing.
5. Reviewer checks the change.
6. Issue is resolved.

The engineering work hasn't changed.

The administrative work has.

Sharing a CAD file should take seconds

A modern collaboration workflow should make sharing almost boring.

Open project.

Click Share.

Choose permission.

Copy link.

Send link.

Done.

This is the standard users have come to expect from modern web applications.

CAD should not be the exception.

AutoCAD's web sharing, for example, allows users to create links and select different sharing modes, including view-only and editing options depending on the drawing and storage workflow.

Onshape similarly provides sharing permissions for individuals and groups.

The question for smaller teams is whether that sharing workflow is simple enough for everyone involved.

Real-time editing: when it matters

Real-time editing sounds impressive.

It isn't always necessary.

If one person is designing a small bracket, simultaneous editing doesn't matter.

If three engineers are working on a large project, it can be transformative.

Consider a site plan.

One engineer is working on road geometry.

Another is updating the stormwater layout.

A third is checking the retaining wall.

If all three can work inside the same project, the design moves forward without waiting for one person to finish and send a new file.

That is where real-time collaboration creates real value.

Live cursors are surprisingly useful

You might think seeing another person's cursor is a gimmick.

It isn't.

When people work together remotely, awareness matters.

You want to know:

• who is online
• who is looking at the drawing
• what area they're working on
• whether someone is currently modifying something you need

That information reduces the need for messages such as:

"Are you editing the north elevation?"

"Are you still working on the drainage?"

"Do you have the drawing open?"

A good collaborative interface answers those questions visually.

CAD collaboration and version history

Version history solves a different problem.

Real-time collaboration answers:

What are we working on now?

Version history answers:

What happened before?

Both matter.

Suppose a client asks why a wall moved.

The designer can explain.

But six months later, the designer may not remember.

A version history can show the progression.

That becomes particularly valuable on long projects.

Branching is the next step

Branching is less common in traditional CAD, but the idea is extremely useful.

Suppose the team has an approved layout.

Someone proposes another option.

In a traditional workflow, they may create:

Option_A.dwg
Option_B.dwg
Option_B_revised.dwg
Option_B_revised_final.dwg

Eventually everyone asks which file is current.

A branch-based system handles this differently.

The approved design remains the main version.

An alternative is created as a branch.

The alternative can be changed without disrupting the main design.

If it works, it can be incorporated.

If it doesn't, the branch can be discarded.

This is one of the most interesting ideas from software development that can be applied to CAD.

Why engineering teams need collaboration more than ever

Engineering projects are becoming more distributed.

The person who creates the drawing may not be the person who approves it.

The person who reviews it may not work for the same company.

The person who builds it may never visit the design office.

The client may be on another island or another continent.

The software therefore needs to support more than the person holding the CAD licence.

It needs to support the entire project.

That means collaboration isn't a side feature.

For many projects, it is part of the core workflow.

Architecture

Architecture is one of the clearest examples.

An architect may own the main drawing.

A structural engineer reviews the structure.

A services consultant checks penetrations.

The client requests changes.

The contractor identifies construction constraints.

Each review creates feedback.

With a file-based workflow, those discussions spread across:

• email
• PDFs
• screenshots
• meetings
• messaging applications
• file folders

A collaborative CAD environment can keep more of that activity connected to the project.

The result isn't simply faster drawing.

It is less ambiguity.

Civil engineering

Civil engineering projects are particularly suitable for collaborative 2D CAD.

Roads change.

Boundaries change.

Services move.

Levels change.

Drainage changes.

Retaining walls move.

A single revision can affect several drawings.

A shared workspace allows the team to see changes without constantly distributing files.

This is especially valuable for consultants working across organisations.

Geotechnical engineering

Geotechnical work provides another strong use case.

A project might contain:

• borehole locations
• test pits
• retaining walls
• site boundaries
• proposed building footprints
• accessways
• slopes
• services
• ground investigation areas

Different people may need to review different parts.

A geotechnical engineer may edit investigation locations.

A reviewer may only need to inspect them.

A client may want to see progress.

A project manager may want to comment.

A contractor may need view-only access.

This is exactly the kind of environment where permissions and contextual comments become useful.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing is different because 3D CAD and product lifecycle management are often central.

A manufacturing team might need:

• design approval
• supplier review
• production review
• quality review
• revision management
• design comments
• controlled access

The important thing is not whether the software has a button labelled "collaboration".

The important thing is whether the workflow connects those activities.

Construction

Construction teams are often heavy users of drawings but light users of CAD.

That makes them ideal candidates for view-only access.

A contractor usually doesn't want to modify the source design.

They want to inspect it.

They want dimensions.

They want current information.

They may want to comment.

They may need to identify an issue.

Giving that person an editing licence can be unnecessary.

A browser-based review workflow can be much more appropriate.

Clients

Clients are another important group.

A client doesn't want to learn CAD.

They want to answer questions.

"Is this the driveway?"

"Has the retaining wall moved?"

"Where is the building?"

"Is this the latest version?"

"Can we look at another option?"

A view-only browser link is often all they need.

This is one reason browser CAD can be useful even when the engineering team remains highly technical.

The browser isn't necessarily replacing the engineer's CAD environment.

It is extending the project to everyone else.

What makes BranchCAD different?

BranchCAD is deliberately focused on a narrower problem.

It isn't trying to be every type of CAD application.

The focus is collaborative 2D CAD in the browser.

That changes the priorities.

Instead of starting with a traditional desktop CAD application and adding collaboration around it, BranchCAD starts with the idea that the drawing should be a shared workspace.

That leads to several important features.

Browser-based CAD

There is no desktop installation required to open the project.

Real-time collaboration

People can work on the same drawing at the same time.

View-only access

People who only need to inspect the drawing don't need editing access.

Comments

Feedback can live alongside the drawing.

Issue resolution

Review discussions can be closed when the underlying issue has been addressed.

Version history

The project can retain its history without relying entirely on filenames.

Branching

Alternative designs can be explored without creating another pile of files.

Easy sharing

A project can be shared with colleagues or clients through a link.

The combination matters more than any individual feature.

BranchCAD versus AutoCAD for collaboration

This is not really a question of which CAD system is "better".

AutoCAD is vastly more established and has a much larger ecosystem.

It supports sophisticated DWG workflows and now has significant web, sharing and markup functionality.

BranchCAD is aimed at a different experience.

AutoCAD is a strong choice when compatibility, DWG support, existing standards and the Autodesk ecosystem are central requirements.

BranchCAD is worth considering when the priority is a lightweight, browser-first collaborative 2D workflow.

BranchCAD versus Onshape

This comparison is even more interesting.

Onshape is one of the strongest examples of cloud-native collaborative CAD.

It provides simultaneous editing, granular permissions, comments and real-time collaboration.

The key difference is the type of CAD.

Onshape is primarily 3D mechanical and product-design focused.

BranchCAD is focused on 2D CAD.

If you're designing complex assemblies, Onshape deserves serious consideration.

If you're primarily working with 2D engineering drawings, the comparison becomes much closer to the workflow you actually need.

BranchCAD versus Fusion

Fusion is particularly strong for product development, manufacturing and 3D design.

It has cloud-based collaboration, comments, web access and design-sharing workflows.

BranchCAD's narrower focus is 2D.

That can be an advantage if your team doesn't need a full mechanical manufacturing platform.

You don't necessarily want a huge product-development system to manage a small civil drawing.

Sometimes simpler is better.

The most important CAD collaboration question

When evaluating software, don't ask:

"Does it have collaboration?"

Ask these questions instead.

Can someone view a drawing without editing it?

This matters for clients and reviewers.

Can someone comment without editing?

This matters for design review.

Can comments be resolved?

This matters for project management.

Can the reviewer point directly to the problem?

This matters for clarity.

Can someone open the drawing without installing CAD?

This matters for external stakeholders.

Can multiple people work at the same time?

This matters for distributed teams.

Can users see who is working?

This matters for coordination.

Is there version history?

This matters when something changes.

Can alternative designs be explored safely?

This matters for design iteration.

Can access be revoked?

This matters when projects end.

Can the team share one current design?

This matters for avoiding stale copies.

These questions are much more useful than asking whether a product has a "collaboration" checkbox.

A practical CAD collaboration workflow

Here is what a good workflow can look like.

Step 1: Create the project

The designer creates the drawing.

There is one central project.

No copies are emailed around.

Step 2: Add the team

Editors receive editing access.

Reviewers receive appropriate permissions.

Clients receive view access.

Contractors receive the access they actually need.

Step 3: Start designing

The main team works on the drawing.

If the platform supports simultaneous editing, multiple people can contribute.

Step 4: Review

A reviewer opens the latest drawing.

They inspect it.

They leave comments directly against the relevant areas.

Step 5: Resolve

The designer addresses the comments.

The reviewer checks the changes.

Resolved issues are closed.

Step 6: Share

The client receives a link.

They don't need a giant attachment.

They don't need to guess which revision is current.

Step 7: Continue

The project remains live.

There is no need to create a new PDF every time somebody wants to inspect progress.

Why email is still a CAD problem

Email itself isn't the problem.

Engineering teams will always use email.

The problem is using email as the database for drawing discussions.

Consider this message:

"Can you please move the retaining wall shown on the eastern side of the site?"

Now imagine receiving that message three months later.

Which eastern side?

Which drawing?

Which revision?

What was the requested offset?

Was the change approved?

Was it completed?

A contextual comment can answer those questions far more effectively.

The hidden cost of file-based collaboration

The cost isn't only software.

There is also the time spent managing the files.

Someone has to:

• export
• upload
• download
• rename
• email
• verify
• compare
• archive
• resend
• explain

None of that improves the engineering.

If a team spends five minutes managing every review cycle and does that hundreds of times per year, the time adds up.

Larger projects amplify the problem.

This is why collaboration can become a productivity issue rather than simply a convenience feature.

Collaboration doesn't mean everyone edits

This deserves repeating.

One of the worst collaboration designs would be:

Everyone gets full editing access.

That creates its own problems.

A client shouldn't accidentally move a wall.

A contractor shouldn't accidentally delete a dimension.

A reviewer shouldn't need permission to modify the model simply because they need to leave feedback.

Good collaboration is controlled collaboration.

The right people edit.

The right people comment.

The right people view.

The owner controls the project.

The ideal permission model

For a typical engineering project, four levels are useful.

Owner

Full control.

Can manage access and project settings.

Editor

Can change the drawing.

Reviewer

Can inspect and comment.

Viewer

Can inspect the current design without changing it.

The exact terminology can vary between products.

The principle is what matters.

What should CAD collaboration software cost?

Price is important, but licence structure is often more important than the headline price.

Imagine software costing $100 per month per editor.

That may be reasonable for four engineers.

It becomes much more expensive if ten clients and contractors also need paid accounts.

A collaboration-friendly model should recognise that not everyone is an editor.

The ability to provide view-only access without treating every reviewer like a CAD designer can make a significant difference.

This is especially relevant to small consultancies.

Small engineering companies may benefit the most

Large companies often have IT teams.

They have document management systems.

They have established CAD standards.

They have dedicated project administrators.

Small firms don't necessarily have those resources.

An engineer may be the CAD manager.

The project manager may also handle document control.

The director may review drawings.

A simple browser-based workflow can therefore have an outsized benefit.

The less administration required, the more time the team can spend engineering.

What about security?

Collaboration cannot come at the expense of project security.

Engineering drawings can contain valuable intellectual property.

A good collaboration platform should provide:

• secure authentication
• controlled access
• permission management
• reliable storage
• encrypted communication
• access revocation
• sensible sharing controls
• version history

The ability to share easily should never mean that everyone gets access to everything.

The goal is controlled access, not unrestricted access.

CAD collaboration and the future of engineering

The direction is clear.

Engineering software is becoming more connected.

Designs are no longer isolated files sitting on one engineer's workstation.

They are becoming shared project environments.

The most interesting part is that this changes the role of CAD.

CAD used to be primarily a drawing tool.

Increasingly, it is becoming a place where design decisions happen.

That means the people around the drawing matter almost as much as the drawing itself.

The best CAD collaboration software depends on your team

There isn't a universal winner.

For a large mechanical engineering organisation, Onshape, SOLIDWORKS/3DEXPERIENCE, Fusion or Inventor may make much more sense than a lightweight 2D system.

For an organisation deeply invested in DWG, AutoCAD or BricsCAD may be the logical choice.

For individual 2D users, QCAD or LibreCAD may be perfectly adequate.

For open-source users, FreeCAD can be compelling.

For mobile 3D design, Shapr3D has a different set of strengths.

For teams primarily working on collaborative 2D engineering drawings in a browser, BranchCAD is designed specifically around that use case.

The right answer depends on what your team actually does.

A simple decision guide

Choose AutoCAD if:

• DWG compatibility is critical.
• You already have an Autodesk environment.
• You need mature 2D CAD functionality.
• You want web access and sharing.
• You need Autodesk's broader ecosystem.

Choose Onshape if:

• You need serious cloud-native 3D CAD.
• Multiple engineers need to collaborate.
• Real-time collaboration is important.
• You need detailed permissions.
• Your work is primarily mechanical/product design.

Choose Fusion if:

• You work in product development.
• Manufacturing is important.
• You need integrated cloud workflows.
• You work with 3D designs.

Choose SOLIDWORKS / 3DEXPERIENCE if:

• Your organisation is already heavily invested in SOLIDWORKS.
• Mechanical engineering is the main discipline.
• You need an enterprise product-development ecosystem.

Choose Inventor if:

• You need Autodesk's mechanical CAD ecosystem.
• You want web-based review and sharing.
• Your organisation already uses Autodesk.

Choose QCAD or LibreCAD if:

• You mainly work individually.
• You need basic 2D drafting.
• Real-time collaboration isn't important.

Choose FreeCAD if:

• Open-source software is important.
• You need parametric 3D CAD.
• Your team is comfortable building workflows around the software.

Consider BranchCAD if:

• Your work is primarily 2D.
• You want browser-based CAD.
• Multiple people need access to the same drawing.
• Clients need view-only access.
• Review comments matter.
• You want a simple sharing workflow.
• You want version history and branching built into the drawing workflow.
• You don't want every project participant to become a full CAD editor.

The real test: give the software a project

Feature lists are useful.

They aren't enough.

The best way to evaluate CAD collaboration software is to use a real project.

Take a drawing your team already understands.

Invite:

• one designer
• one reviewer
• one project manager
• one external stakeholder

Then try the following.

Open the drawing.

Share it.

Give one person editing access.

Give another person view-only access.

Ask the reviewer to leave five comments.

Ask the designer to resolve them.

Change the drawing while another person is viewing it.

Try to find the previous version.

Try an alternative design.

Then ask everyone:

Did we spend more time working on the design, or managing the software?

That answer is more valuable than a feature comparison table.

What collaboration should feel like

Good software shouldn't make the team think about collaboration.

It should simply remove the need for unnecessary steps.

A client asks for access.

You send a link.

A reviewer notices a problem.

They comment.

An engineer fixes it.

The reviewer checks it.

The issue is resolved.

Another engineer starts working.

The project manager watches the latest version.

Nobody creates:

Final_v7_revised_FINAL.dwg

That is the real promise of collaborative CAD.

Not more buttons.

Less friction.

Why 2D CAD deserves better collaboration

A lot of attention in the CAD industry goes to advanced 3D modelling.

That makes sense.

3D design is technically impressive.

But 2D drawings remain critical across enormous parts of engineering.

Site plans.

Civil layouts.

Subdivision plans.

Architectural drawings.

Details.

Schematics.

Plans and elevations.

Construction drawings.

Geotechnical plans.

Survey drawings.

Many of these workflows still revolve around DWG files and PDF exports.

The fact that a drawing is 2D doesn't make collaboration less important.

In some projects, it makes simplicity more important.

Collaboration for geotechnical and civil teams

There is a particularly strong opportunity here.

Geotechnical engineers often work with information coming from several sources.

Survey data.

Property boundaries.

Boreholes.

Laboratory testing.

Site observations.

Existing structures.

Retaining walls.

Terrain.

Civil layouts.

Architectural plans.

The drawing becomes a meeting point between disciplines.

A collaborative 2D environment can therefore become more than a drafting application.

It can become the place where those disciplines coordinate.

That is a very different role for CAD.

CAD is becoming a shared workspace

This may be the most important change.

The traditional CAD model is:

Person → Application → File

The collaborative model is closer to:

People → Shared workspace → Design

That sounds like a small wording difference.

It isn't.

In the first model, the file is the centre.

In the second, the project is the centre.

That affects sharing.

It affects permissions.

It affects version history.

It affects review.

It affects how clients participate.

It affects how teams work remotely.

Final comparison

If you only need to send a drawing to somebody, almost any modern CAD ecosystem can help.

If you need people to review a drawing, more options become relevant.

If you need comments and issue resolution, the field narrows.

If you need view-only access alongside editing access, the distinction becomes clearer.

If you need several people working simultaneously in the same design, the field narrows again.

And if your primary requirement is collaborative 2D CAD in a browser, you should compare products on that exact workflow rather than assuming that a CAD application's general "cloud" features mean the same thing.

That is the key lesson from comparing the market.

CAD collaboration software: the questions that matter

Before choosing a platform, ask:

Can I share a drawing with a client using a link?

If not, external collaboration will remain cumbersome.

Can the client view without editing?

They probably shouldn't need a CAD editing licence.

Can a reviewer comment?

If feedback is important, this should be built into the workflow.

Can comments be resolved?

Otherwise the review list becomes permanent clutter.

Can comments stay associated with the design?

This is much better than relying on email.

Can people edit simultaneously?

If your team needs it, make sure it is genuine simultaneous collaboration rather than simply cloud storage.

Can I see who is working?

Useful for remote teams.

Is there version history?

Essential for serious projects.

Can I experiment without creating duplicate files?

Branching can make this dramatically cleaner.

Can I revoke access?

Important for clients and external consultants.

Can the system work in a browser?

Especially important for occasional users.

Does the CAD itself fit my discipline?

This remains the most important question.

A brilliant collaboration system won't help if the underlying CAD doesn't support your work.

Frequently asked questions

What is CAD collaboration software?

CAD collaboration software allows multiple people to participate in a CAD project through features such as sharing, viewing, commenting, review, permissions, version history and, in some platforms, simultaneous editing.

The important distinction is that collaboration can happen at several levels. A platform that lets you upload a DWG is offering a different experience from one where multiple engineers work inside the same design.

What is the best CAD software for collaboration?

There is no single best option.

Onshape is one of the strongest examples of cloud-native real-time collaboration for 3D CAD. AutoCAD has a mature ecosystem with web access, sharing, view-only workflows and markup. Fusion provides cloud collaboration for product design and manufacturing. BranchCAD focuses specifically on collaborative 2D CAD.

The best choice depends on whether your work is primarily 2D, 3D mechanical, manufacturing, architecture, civil engineering or another discipline.

Can CAD files be shared with clients without giving them editing access?

Yes.

Several modern CAD platforms support view-only workflows.

AutoCAD supports view-only sharing in its web sharing workflows.

Onshape provides view permissions that allow users to see the design without editing it.

Autodesk Shared Views also allow people to review shared designs in a browser without needing the originating Autodesk product installed.

Can clients comment on CAD drawings?

Yes, depending on the platform and sharing mode.

Onshape supports comments and replies, including mentions and assignments.

Autodesk Shared Views allow collaborators to comment on shared views and provide replies and resolution workflows.

What is the difference between CAD sharing and CAD collaboration?

CAD sharing means giving another person access to a file or view.

CAD collaboration is broader.

It can include:

• simultaneous editing
• comments
• review
• permissions
• version history
• issue resolution
• branching
• activity history

Sharing is one part of collaboration.

Is real-time CAD collaboration necessary?

Not always.

For an individual designer, it may provide little benefit.

For distributed teams working on the same project, it can save significant time.

The more people involved in the same design, the more valuable simultaneous collaboration becomes.

Is browser-based CAD better than desktop CAD?

Neither is automatically better.

Desktop CAD remains extremely powerful.

Browser-based CAD can make sharing, access and collaboration much easier.

The right choice depends on your workflow.

Can view-only users still comment?

Some platforms allow this and some distinguish between view-only and commenting permissions.

Onshape's current permissions documentation is a good example of granular access controls.

Always check the exact permission model before choosing software.

Why are comments important in CAD?

Because design decisions need context.

A comment attached to the relevant part of the drawing can tell the team what needs to change and why.

That information is much easier to find later than a sentence buried in an email thread.

What is issue resolution in CAD?

Issue resolution is the ability to track a review item until it has been addressed.

A reviewer identifies a problem.

The designer responds.

The change is made.

The reviewer confirms it.

The issue is resolved.

This turns comments into an actual review process.

Does cloud CAD mean real-time collaboration?

No.

Cloud storage and real-time collaboration are different.

A CAD file can be stored in the cloud while still being edited by one person at a time.

Real-time collaboration means the system supports people working together in a shared environment.

Is Onshape good for CAD collaboration?

Yes.

Onshape is one of the clearest examples of collaborative cloud-native CAD. Its documentation describes simultaneous editing, real-time updates, permissions and comments.

Its main consideration is that it is primarily a 3D mechanical/product-design platform rather than a dedicated 2D civil or drafting system.

Is AutoCAD good for CAD collaboration?

AutoCAD has significantly stronger collaboration capabilities than the old "send someone a DWG" workflow suggests.

Its web application supports sharing, view-only access and editing workflows, while Autodesk Docs and web markup capabilities add more collaborative review functionality.

It remains particularly attractive for organisations that depend on DWG compatibility and the Autodesk ecosystem.

Is free CAD software collaborative?

Usually not in the same way as cloud-native collaborative CAD.

FreeCAD, LibreCAD and QCAD can be excellent tools for individual users.

Teams can still collaborate using file-sharing systems, Git-like workflows or cloud storage.

But that is different from having real-time collaboration, contextual comments and permissions built directly into the CAD environment.

What should a small engineering company look for?

Start with five questions:

1. Can we share a drawing easily?
2. Can clients view without editing?
3. Can reviewers comment?
4. Can we track and resolve issues?
5. Can multiple engineers work together without passing files around?

If the answer to all five is yes, you've found a much more modern collaboration workflow.

Final thoughts

CAD has spent decades getting better at drawing.

The next improvement is getting better at working together.

The technology required to draw a precise line was never the only problem.

Engineering projects involve people.

Designers.

Reviewers.

Clients.

Consultants.

Contractors.

Managers.

Approvers.

The drawing sits in the middle of all of them.

That means the best CAD collaboration software should make it easier for those people to interact with the design without forcing everyone to become a CAD expert.

A designer should be able to edit.

A reviewer should be able to comment.

A client should be able to view.

A project manager should be able to follow progress.

An issue should be able to move from open to resolved.

And everyone should know which version is current.

That sounds simple.

It hasn't been.

For a long time, engineering software treated collaboration as something that happened around the CAD file.

The newer generation of tools is moving in the opposite direction.

The design is becoming the shared workspace.

That's the direction worth watching.

And for teams doing 2D engineering work, it may be one of the biggest practical changes to CAD workflows in years.

Related BranchCAD articles

• Collaborative CAD: A Complete Guide for Teams
• [Browser CAD vs Desktop CAD: Which Is Right for Your Team?]
• [CAD Drawing Review Workflow: Run It Like a Pull Request]
• [CAD Merge Conflicts: What Happens When Two People Edit the Same Drawing?]
• [What Is Version Control for CAD?]
• [How View-Only CAD Can Reduce Engineering Software Costs]
• [BranchCAD vs AutoCAD for Collaborative 2D Drafting]

Try collaborative 2D CAD

If your team still sends CAD files back and forth every time someone needs to review a drawing, there is another way to work.

Start designing free and see what happens when the drawing becomes the shared workspace instead of another attachment in someone's inbox.