SolidWorks Vs Inventor: Feature Based Comparison of Two Major 3D CAD Platforms

SOLIDWORKS and Inventor are two of the leading 3D CAD modeling platforms utilized in most of the industries today. With each having its own differentiating factors, there is always a question on choosing the one that is best. While some prefer the user-friendliness of SOLIDWORKS, some find Inventor as a better alternative to suit specific requirements. Comparing the two however is like comparing apples Vs apples. Both are equally capable to help design engineers to model complex geometries with ease and have their own modules or features integrated to extend the design for other departments.

At Hitech, we have been utilizing both these tools for our clients. Working on different projects including sheet metal, solid modeling, large assemblies, design automation and 3D rendering, we feel that there are certain important features that can certainly differentiate these two leading CAD modeling platforms. Here are some of them:

  Sketch

Function

Contour

Closing the contour finishes the line automatically

Requires pressing ESC to finish the line

Dimensioning Tool

Less functionality and requires additional click for aligned dimension

Advanced functions such as text formatting, symbols, comments, etc.

Editing

Changing the geometry size causes instability at times

Remains stable

Sketch Constraints

Less User Friendly

More User Friendly

  Features

Function

Extrude

Reference must be surface to start or end extrude

Can be vertex, surface or offset from surface

Revolve

Reference for “To” must be surface and no possibility to Offset for “From” reference

It is possible to reference vertex for both “To” and “From”

Hole Wizard

End Condition: Distance, Through all, To

Slots: No

Hole on Curved Face: Additional plane required

End Condition: Blind, Through all, Up to Next, Up to Vertex, Up to Surface and Offset from Surface

Slots: Yes

Hole in Curved Face: Can be placed on any face

Sweep

Profile Twist: Limited possibility

Bidirectional Sweep: Not available

Profile Twist: Greater possibility

Bidirectional Sweep: Yes

Patterns

Linear/Rectangular: Yes but not possible to skip instances

Circular: Yes, but cannot skip instances. More options in positioning method.

Linear/Rectangular: Yes

Circular: Yes. Only linear positioning method available.

Other Patterns: Sketch driven, Curve driven, Table driven, Fill pattern.

  Assemblies

Function

Mates/Joints

Standard Mates: Coincident, Parallel, Perpendicular, Concentric, Distance, Angle

Width Mate: No

Mechanical Mates: Few

Standard Mates: Coincident, Parallel, Perpendicular, Concentric, Distance, Angle

Width Mate: Yes

Mechanical Mates: More advances

Assembly Inspection

Interference detection

Interference detection, clearance verification, hole alignment

Large Assemblies

Load Modes: Resolved and Express

Load Modes: Resolved, Lightweight, Large Assembly Mode and Large Design Review

  Drawings

Function

Printing

Drawings sheets can be excluded from printing or counting

No Such Possibility

Update Drawing

“Defer Updates” function to stop updating drawing from the model

No Such Possibility

Dimension Favourites

Not available

Available. It is also possible to add text under dimension line

While the comparison may not be exhaustive, it is clearly visible that SOLIDWORKS offers much more functionality with each feature to keep design process glitch-free. That being said, Inventor still has multiple features that come as standard compared to the basic SOLIDWORKS version.

Additionally, Inventor has significantly low cost of ownership. Both the platforms have design automation capability. While Inventor utilizes an in-built iLogic feature, SOLIDWORKS uses a 3rd Party solution called DriveWorksXpress which is free but has limited functionality. For a comprehensive engineering design automation and CAD customization solution, it is required to purchase Solo or Pro version of the DriveWorks.

Kashyap Vyas is an Engineer at Hitech and holds a Master’s degree in Thermal Engineering with several research papers to his credit. He covers CAD and CAE topics for the engineering industry. His contributions are primarily focused on encouraging manufacturers and suppliers to adopt virtual product development tools to build efficient products with reduced time-to-market.