Home

Benchmark & case study

Here we benchmark WorkshopBuddy against another popular tool and run through a real-world case study.

Cutlistoptimizer.com vs WorkshopBuddy

Feature comparison

Feature CLO WB
Lock part orientation
Import from spreadsheet
Edge banding
Save projects
Auto add stock
Sheet materials
Linear material settings
Share project via link
Trim parts & stock
Blade width per stock
Export to DXF & SVG
Settings for CNC, table and beam saws
Ability to move parts
Visualise all offcuts

Benchmarking method

All tests were performed with a paid subscription to Cutlistoptimizer.com and WorkshopBuddy using the appropriate settings. To view a real-world example, skip to the case study.

Benchmark 1

Simple 9x9 cut pattern

This first comparison takes a simple cutlist and compares the offcut shapes and the cut pattern

Benchmark

⬆ Cutlistoptimizer.com only produces the pattern above using both the Least number of cuts and Least wasted area settings. Note the three horizontal edge to edge cuts.

Benchmark

⬆ Using the Maximum efficiency setting, WorkshopBuddy produces a pattern without any edge-to-edge cuts, useful for CNC or laser cutting.

Benchmark

⬆ Using the Length cuts & Stock efficiency setting, WorkshopBuddy produces a single horizontal cut, making a larger offcut.

Benchmark

⬆ Using the Length cuts & Time efficiency setting, WorkshopBuddy produces three horizontal cuts, which reduces the number of times the sheet has to be reset on a table saw.

Benchmark 2

Mix of large, medium & small parts

Benchmark

⬆ Cutlistoptimizer.com produces the pattern above using the Least wasted area settings, note the uneven clustering of green parts in the bottom right.

Benchmark

⬆ Using the Maximum efficiency setting, WorkshopBuddy produces a pattern with similar parts oriented & clustered together meaning fewer fence changes and more accurate cuts.

Case study

A real-world project

For this benchmark, we're using a project supplied by a user - a bookcase, a cabinet and some shelves. Three different plywood types are used - parts are allocated to each depending on the materials needed. The identical parts list was imported into both tools, which were both set to the appropriate length cut settings. There are a total of 91 parts in the project.

CLO WB Winner
Calculation time 7.42 seconds 0.17 seconds WB - 7.25 seconds quicker
Number of offcuts 71 55 WB - 16 fewer offcuts
Total cut length 5,994.5 5,634.5 WB - 360 inches less cutting
Total stock required 18 16 WB - 2 stock saved

Overall winner - WorkshopBuddy

Conclusion

For this real example, a WorkshopBuddy user was able to order two fewer sheets of plywood in a single project, saving well over $100. There was significantly less cutting to do and larger, more useful offcuts for future usage. The patterns are shown below for reference.

Benchmark