Below you can find a benchmark between Opticutter and Cutlist Evolution. We’ve used a combination of real-world and test projects to compare the performance of the two tools.
The table below presents a comparative overview of the features offered by Opticutter and Cutlist Evolution. While both tools share some common functionalities, Cutlist Evolution stands out with its additional features, enhancing its utility in more complex scenarios.
| Feature | Opticutter | Cutlist Evolution |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple materials & thicknesses | ||
| Offcut management | ||
| Cut measurements | ||
| Cost estimates | ||
| Saw settings | ||
| First cut direction choice | ||
| Share projects via link | ||
| Live chat support |
We evaluated the performance of Opticutter and Cutlist Evolution using a series of projects, ranging from simple to highly complex tasks. This comparison highlights their efficacy in real-world conditions.
The projects are:
More will be added soon.
This benchmark is one of our internal tests. We have 39 shapes that we need to fit onto a single stock item. This one is a real challenge for most optimizers. Opticutter fails to fit all the parts, and you would need to order an additional sheet to complete this project, doubling material costs.
| Tool | Yield | Sheets needed | Material area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opticutter | 49.1% | 2 | 11.1 sq m |
| Cutlist Evolution | 98.2% | 1 | 5.6 sq m |
| Additional efficiency | 49.1% | 1 fewer stock | 5.5 sq m less material |
Opticutter’s limitation in this test led to the need for an additional sheet, doubling material costs. In contrast, Cutlist Evolution efficiently managed the task with a single sheet, highlighting its superior optimization capability.
This large, real-world project powerfully demonstrates the benefits of Cutlist Evolution. A user required an estimate and a bill of materials for a large construction project. The project needed 2786 parts, and the user had two stock dimensions available - the larger was a more expensive material as it was a special order. The brief was to reduce the amount of the more expensive material required. You can find the results below.
| Tool | Yield | Sheets needed | Material area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opticutter | 78% | 1,176 | 42,080 sq ft |
| Cutlist Evolution | 85% | 1,125 | 38,664 sq ft |
| Additional efficiency | 7% | 51 fewer stock | 3,416 sq ft less material |
In this scenario, Cutlist Evolution demonstrated a remarkable capacity to reduce the use of more expensive materials, leading to substantial cost savings. The project saved 51 stock items, translating to thousands of dollars in savings compared to Opticutter.
A project of this size would require a custom plan - however, if you use a large number of materials, Cutlist Evolution will usually pay for itself after the first project. In this case, by using Cutlist Evolution, we managed to order 51 fewer stock items, saving thousands of dollars versus Opticutter.
Our benchmarks reveal that while both Opticutter and Cutlist Evolution are competent tools, Cutlist Evolution offers enhanced features and superior performance, particularly in complex or large-scale projects. The additional functionalities like offcut management, cost estimation, and advanced settings contribute significantly to its efficiency.
We encourage professionals to contact us for more detailed run-throughs of these benchmarks or to conduct custom evaluations tailored to specific project requirements. Choosing the right cutting optimization tool is crucial, and our analysis aims to provide the necessary insights for making an informed decision.