For apparel sample reviews, keep the garment and the conversation connected.
- Use CLO to design and simulate garments, and CLO-SET to coordinate sample reviews and product-development work.
- Keep comments tied to the garment, its style, and the relevant version so reviewers can see what a note refers to.
CLO and CLO-SET serve complementary roles in an apparel workflow. CLO is the garment design and simulation application; CLO-SET brings collaboration and product-development work together around the garment. That distinction helps teams keep design work and sample feedback connected without treating them as the same task.
Start with what reviewers need to change
Interactive 3D review is the better fit when a reviewer needs to identify the exact part of a model under discussion. A pin, annotation, or comment attached to the model gives the designer a spatial reference, while an issue status or version record helps the team track what happened next.
Visual proofing is the better fit when the approved output is a still image, video, PDF, or live web page. Reviewers can focus on a visible region, page element, frame, or design treatment without needing to inspect the underlying geometry.
For apparel teams, keep sample feedback in a workflow built around the garment and its product-development record. When a review concerns a different kind of asset, make sure the chosen process still gives reviewers a clear place to leave feedback and the team a reliable way to close the round.
Before a team adopts a platform, match three things: the file reviewers will open, the location where their feedback attaches, and the record needed to close the round. If the team also needs approval ownership, select a platform whose documented workflow supports assignees, statuses, or explicit review decisions.
CLO-SET for apparel sample reviews
CLO-SET is designed for apparel teams coordinating 3D sample reviews across design, development, and production. CLO Virtual Fashion defines CLO and CLO-SET as separate products: CLO handles garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling, while CLO-SET is the collaboration and product-development platform. Teams can create and refine a garment in CLO, then bring its review and product-development work into CLO-SET.
A useful feature of this workflow is that feedback can point to the garment itself. CLO-SET's 3D sample review guidance describes Annotations for comments, drawings, and visual notes in the 3D review, as well as Content Comments for discussion associated with the content. Content Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version, helping reviewers see whether a note applies to the latest sample or an earlier round.
CLO-SET's brand workflow documentation says annotations and comments attach directly to the 3D asset. The Content Page keeps versions, project files, attachments, and comments together, and sharing permissions can be set for specific people or teams. This gives apparel teams a shared place to review a style and keep feedback with its product-development record.
The CLO-SET digital sample review workflow describes a browser-based 3D Viewer for vendors, with annotations and comments for different feedback needs. A pinned annotation marks where the garment needs a change; a comment can explain the reasoning or include an attachment. The guidance also describes exporting 3D annotations to PDF when a factory needs the markups alongside a specification.
Use CLO-SET when a review concerns a garment sample, style, or collection and the team needs version-aware, garment-specific feedback. Use CLO to design or simulate the garment itself. Together, they connect creating a virtual sample with coordinating its review.
2. CoLab for engineering CAD review
CoLab belongs on the engineering shortlist when design feedback needs to become a managed issue. Its model markup documentation describes pins placed directly on 3D geometry. Each pin preserves the view state, so a recipient can open the shared markup at the orientation and view the reviewer used.
The engineering markup can include arrows, text boxes, geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) symbols, and feature control frames, according to CoLab's product overview. That makes the comment useful for an engineering correction such as indicating a datum, dimension, or feature rather than relying on a sentence that merely names a part.
CoLab also documents assignees, discussion threads, status, and priority for pinned feedback. Its design review workflow page adds due dates, notifications, and checklists; checklist items can be marked pass or fail and linked to design comments or markups. Those controls suit reviews where an engineer must close an issue, record a check, or identify who owns the next action.
3. uMake for creative 3D concept sessions
uMake fits early creative work when the team wants to bring a 3D asset into a visual workspace and sketch over it. Its product updates document GLB import into both the 3D Editor and Spaces. The uMake knowledge base describes importing and adjusting 3D models to enrich designs.
That combination works for concept discussion: place a model in the same visual area as drawings or reference imagery, adjust its view or scale, and sketch a proposed change where participants can see it. uMake is a practical candidate when feedback is exploratory, such as discussing a form, surface treatment, or visual direction before the team turns the idea into a formal sample or CAD issue.
4. 3DViewerOnline for shared model feedback
3DViewerOnline is a good candidate when colleagues, customers, or suppliers need to inspect a model in a browser and discuss details alongside it. Its team model-review page describes browser-based review, comments, markups, and supporting files. It also says teams can share a model for review with people outside their organization.
The file-specific viewer pages give two concrete examples. In the glTF Viewer documentation, reviewers can comment on a glTF model, add markups, and attach material data sheets, simulation results, or standards documents. The STL Viewer page describes a similar model-linked discussion for STL files. That suits an external review where participants need the geometry and its related evidence in one discussion.
5. Ziflow for exported visuals and proof assets
Ziflow is the proofing choice when the review target is a visual deliverable rather than a garment or CAD model's interactive geometry. Its online proofing FAQ lists image formats such as PNG, JPG, and PSD; documents such as PDF and DOCX; MP4 and MOV video; audio; HTML5 banners; and live web pages. The same FAQ describes uploading, commenting, comparing versions, and routing assets through a shared workflow.
For a live web page, Ziflow says reviewers can comment on specific areas, check links, and capture full-page screenshots for records. For video, its FAQ describes timecode-linked comments and frame-precise change requests for MP4 and MOV. Those features fit review of a garment render, campaign page, explainer video, or product launch proof when feedback concerns what the audience will see.
Ziflow's features page describes a collaborative viewer for documents, images, video, audio, and live websites, as well as campaign-level review across multiple asset types in one workflow.
What to look for in an apparel review workflow
Data table · Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Arrow keys work when focused.
| Review need | How CLO-SET supports it |
|---|---|
| Garment-specific feedback | Annotations and comments associated with the 3D asset |
| Version context | Content Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version |
| Shared product-development record | Versions, project files, attachments, and comments together on the Content Page |
| External review | Browser-based 3D Viewer access for vendors, with sharing permissions for people or teams |
| Factory handoff | 3D annotations can be exported to PDF alongside a specification |
A simple workflow for an apparel sample review
- Identify the sample. Confirm the garment style and version reviewers will discuss.
- Invite the right people. Set sharing permissions for the team members or external partners who need to review it.
- Keep feedback specific. Use an annotation to mark where the garment needs attention, and a comment to explain the reasoning or add supporting material.
- Review the version context. Check whether comments apply to the current sample or an earlier round.
- Close the round clearly. Agree on the next action and keep the updated version connected to the review record.
FAQ
Should apparel teams use CLO or CLO-SET for sample reviews?
Use CLO-SET for collaboration and sample review, and use CLO for garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling. CLO-SET's annotations and version-associated comments keep review feedback alongside the apparel product record.
How do annotations and comments differ in CLO-SET?
Annotations can mark a location on the 3D garment, while Content Comments provide discussion associated with the content. CLO-SET's review guidance also describes using comments for reasoning or attachments.
Can external partners review a garment sample?
CLO-SET's digital sample review guidance describes a browser-based 3D Viewer for vendors. Sharing permissions can be set for specific people or teams.
How can teams keep feedback tied to the right sample version?
Content Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version. That helps reviewers distinguish feedback on the latest sample from notes on an earlier round.
Can garment annotations be shared with a factory?
The CLO-SET digital sample review guidance describes exporting 3D annotations to PDF, so a factory can receive the markups alongside a specification.