Where each tool wins.
Including the two rows where we lose. A comparison that only flatters its author is not one you can take into a meeting.
What each one actually does.
Click the mark next to a row for the reasoning. The percentage under each tool is simply how many rows it covers.
| Spreadsheet0% | CAD0% | Layout SaaS0% | Simulation0% | Auddomate0% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reading the building | |||||
| Reads a DXF and its scale from the file | — | — | |||
Simulation tools import CAD but rarely honour the declared units; Auddomate reads $INSUNITS and asks nothing. | |||||
| PDF and image plans with a two-point scale | — | — | |||
| Racking, aisle, dock and obstruction markup | — | ||||
| Permit-grade DWG output | — | — | — | — | |
If the drawing is the deliverable, use CAD. Auddomate produces a report, not a contractor drawing. | |||||
| Answering the question | |||||
| Aisle clearance checked against a specific machine | — | — | — | ||
| Throughput against demand | — | — | |||
A spreadsheet can do this if you build it; the difference is whether the assumptions are visible six months later. | |||||
| Models congestion, queueing and breakdowns | — | — | — | — | |
This is where simulation earns its price. Auddomate states an upper bound and says so. | |||||
| Payback in months | — | — | |||
| Answer in an afternoon, not a fortnight | — | — | |||
| No trained modeller needed | — | ||||
| After the pitch | |||||
| Client-ready report from the same data | — | — | |||
| Measures what the fleet actually did against the model | — | — | — | — | |
Nothing else in this table goes back afterwards to check whether it was right. | |||||
| Shared workspace with roles | — | ||||
| Machine library you own and edit | — | — | — | ||
| Vendor-neutral, no commission | |||||
| Practicalities | |||||
| Runs in a browser | — | ||||
| Nine complete languages | — | — | |||
| Your data exports as CSV and JSON | — | ||||
| Can run on your own server | — | ||||
When to use which.
Zero cost, zero learning curve, and it goes anywhere. For a one-off back-of-envelope it is fine.
Nothing is measured off a drawing, every assumption is buried in a cell, and three months later nobody can reconstruct why the number came out the way it did.
Produces permit-grade, contractor-ready DWG files. If the deliverable is the drawing itself, nothing else comes close.
It knows nothing about racking, machines, throughput or payback. You draw the aisle beautifully and then open the spreadsheet anyway.
Genuinely quick at laying out racking and counting positions, with sensible defaults for bays and tunnels.
It stops at the layout. No machine, no clearance check against one, no throughput, no fleet, nothing measured afterwards.
Models congestion, queueing at docks, charging, breakdowns and interactions between machines. When the question is genuinely about dynamics, this is the right tool and we will say so.
Every model is built from scratch by a trained engineer, which takes days to weeks per study. At list prices of six to nineteen thousand a seat, it is a poor fit for qualifying twenty sites a quarter.
A defensible answer in an afternoon, with the arithmetic visible. The clearance check catches the aisle that fails before anyone pours concrete, and telemetry tells you afterwards whether the model was right.
It does not model congestion or queueing. Its throughput figure is an honest upper bound, and for a site where dynamics decide the answer, you should take that figure to a simulation seat.
From a drawing to a number you'd sign.
One study, one site, one person who knows the tool. Our estimates, on a log scale so the short bars are still visible.
Two hours is a claim. Test it.
The demo has five complete studies, each with a scaled plan, already in it. Open one, draw an aisle, and see how long it takes to get to a number.