OptiCutter benchmark
This is a benchmark of OptiCutter against Cutlist Evolution, run on a mix of real-world and test projects.
We build Cutlist Evolution, which is a reason to read the numbers carefully rather than a reason to skip them. Each job below is published with its parts count, its stock, the yield and the sheet count, so you can compare it against what your current tool returns on work of the same shape.
Features
Section titled “Features”Both tools produce sheet layouts and cover the basics of doing so. The table lists the features where the two diverge. Every one of them is present in Cutlist Evolution and absent from OptiCutter, and they are the ones that start to matter as jobs get more complex.
| Feature | OptiCutter | Cutlist Evolution |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple materials and thicknesses | ||
| Offcut management | ||
| Cut measurements | ||
| Cost estimates | ||
| Saw settings | ||
| First cut direction choice | ||
| Share projects via link | ||
| Live chat support |
Performance
Section titled “Performance”Both tools were given the same parts and the same stock on two projects, one a deliberately hard test and one a real job at production scale. They are:
- One of our internal benchmarks: 39 shapes and a single stock item.
- A sizeable real-world project, two stock dimensions, 2,786 parts, unlimited stock.
More will be added soon.
1. 39 shapes on a single stock item
Section titled “1. 39 shapes on a single stock item”This is one of our internal tests: 39 shapes that have to fit onto a single stock item. It is a real challenge for most optimizers. OptiCutter fails to fit all the parts, so finishing the project means ordering a second sheet and doubling the material cost.
| 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 |
The yield column says the same thing from the other side. At 49.1%, more than half the material OptiCutter asks you to buy leaves the shop as offcut. Cutlist Evolution fits the job on one sheet at 98.2%.
2. Two stock dimensions and many parts for a construction project
Section titled “2. Two stock dimensions and many parts for a construction project”A user came to us needing an estimate and a bill of materials for a large construction project. It ran to 2,786 parts, with two stock dimensions available. The larger of the two was a special order and the more expensive material, so the brief was to reduce how much of it the job required. The results are 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 |
That is 51 fewer stock items ordered, worth thousands of dollars on a special-order material. A project this size needs a custom plan, but on a job carrying that many materials the software usually pays for itself the first time it runs.
Final words
Section titled “Final words”Both are competent tools. On the two projects here Cutlist Evolution used less material, and the margin widened with the size and difficulty of the job: one sheet against two on the packing test, 1,125 sheets against 1,176 on the construction job. The features in the table above, offcut management, cost estimates and the advanced settings among them, are what carry that difference into complex or large-scale work.
If you want a fuller run-through of either benchmark, or the same comparison run on your own parts list, get in touch. Which optimizer you choose is worth settling on measurements rather than on feature lists, including ours.