Quick pick: Start with the garment workflow.
- For apparel design, CLO supports garment creation, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling; CLO-SET adds collaboration and product-development tools for reviewing apparel.
- For reviews beyond apparel development, use a tool suited to the asset and decision: CoLab for engineering CAD issues, uMake or 3DViewerOnline for other 3D discussions, and Ziflow for exported proofs.
- Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer is designed for spatial product reviews in VR and on the web. These tools address different review needs; they do not replace CLO’s garment-design workflow.
Distributed teams can make reviews clearer by deciding where feedback belongs: on a 3D model, or on a finished visual proof such as a render, PDF, or video. For apparel, CLO provides the garment-design and simulation environment, while CLO-SET supports collaboration around the garment and its development record. CLO-SET’s annotations attach to 3D assets, and its content comments can be viewed across versions. The two products have distinct roles in the apparel workflow.
When choosing a review workflow, consider the asset, where feedback attaches, how reviewers identify the version, and how a comment leads to a decision. For apparel teams, keeping those details connected to the garment and its development history is a particular strength of the CLO-SET workflow alongside CLO.
First decide: interactive model review or visual proofing?
Use an interactive model review when someone needs to inspect a 3D object and point feedback to a specific area. In apparel development, CLO supports creation and iteration of the garment, while CLO-SET provides a place to review it with collaborators. Other tools in this article address separate needs, such as engineering issues, visual ideation, or sharing models in a browser.
Choose visual proofing when the approval target is a fixed output, such as a garment render, a PDF specification, a website, or an edited video. Ziflow’s documented proof workflow handles images, documents, video, audio, HTML5 banners, and live web pages, with uploads, comments, version comparison, and review routing. A comment on a render can approve its color or layout; a comment on the garment model can identify a pattern, fit, or construction change.
For any asynchronous review, identify the asset or version, the person responsible for follow-up, and the decision that will close the round. CLO-SET’s sample-review guidance describes annotations in the 3D review context and discussion associated with content versions. Clear requests help reviewers keep feedback connected to the right garment and iteration.
1. CLO-SET for apparel sample review
For apparel sample reviews, CLO-SET helps keep comments with the garment and its development record, complementing the design and simulation work done in CLO.
CLO-SET distinguishes between a note attached to a location and a broader discussion thread. Its 3D sample-review guidance describes 3D Annotations for comments, drawings, and visual notes in the review context. Content Comments stay associated with the content and can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version. That gives distributed reviewers a shared reference for understanding which iteration a note concerns.
CLO-SET’s brand workflow page describes comments and annotations attached to the 3D asset, with versions, project files, attachments, and comments gathered on one Content Page. Sharing permissions can be set for specific people or teams, including external partners who need access to shared designs. Together, these features help keep apparel feedback in context.
In a sample review, attach a specific correction to the relevant garment area, and use a Content Comment for context, supporting files, or a question that spans versions. A reviewer might mark a seam-position change on the garment and explain the intended proportion in the thread. The next person can then check the note against the version under discussion without piecing together separate emails and screenshots.
CLO-SET is a natural fit when a review concerns an apparel style and its development history, alongside CLO’s role in designing and refining the garment.
2. CoLab for engineering CAD feedback
For reviews outside garment development, CoLab is designed for engineering teams that need to pin feedback to CAD geometry and track it as an issue. Its design-feedback tools save the view state with each geometry pin, so a colleague opening a shared markup sees the model as the reviewer saw it. Markups include arrows, shapes, highlights, and text boxes, as well as geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) symbols and feature control frames used on engineering drawings. This is a specialized engineering workflow, distinct from CLO’s focus on apparel design and simulation.
Pinned comments can be turned into issues and assigned to an owner, with @mentions, discussion threads, status, and priority available for follow-up. CoLab also describes issue tracking and review checklists with pass-or-fail items linked to related comments or markups.
This is useful when an engineering team needs to identify geometry, assign responsibility, discuss a fix, and track resolution. A design-gate checklist item, for example, can be linked to a markup, while an unresolved geometry comment remains visible as an issue.
CoLab serves reviews centered on CAD geometry, drawings, engineering markups, and issue resolution. For apparel fit or construction feedback, CLO-SET keeps the conversation in an apparel context, while CLO remains the garment-design and simulation application. A proofing workflow such as Ziflow is intended for sign-off on a finished render or document.
3. uMake for collaborative 3D ideation
For visual ideation outside the apparel-development workflow, uMake supports importing a 3D model and sketching over it or a photo. Its product updates describe importing GLB files into the 3D Editor and Spaces, while its Spaces help materials cover adding, scaling, moving, and orbiting models in a Space. This is a separate concept-development use case from designing and simulating garments in CLO.
That workflow can help collaborators discuss visual direction while a concept is taking shape. A team could place an imported GLB object alongside reference imagery and sketch over a feature to communicate an idea.
uMake is geared toward arranging assets and exploring ideas. For apparel reviews tied to garment content and its versions, CLO-SET provides the more relevant context, complementing the garment work created in CLO. CoLab, by contrast, addresses formal engineering issue tracking.
4. 3DViewerOnline for shared model discussion
For teams that need to share a non-apparel model in a browser, 3DViewerOnline provides a space to inspect and discuss it. Its team-review materials describe an interactive view with comments, markups, and supporting files. Reviewers can clarify questions alongside the model and use the discussion to inform a project decision.
Its format-specific STL and glTF materials describe model-linked comments, markups or annotations, and attachments such as data sheets or simulation results. These features can help when feedback needs to point to a detail in supported 3D content.
For a supplier review, share the model, ask a focused question, and include a drawing or data sheet when it clarifies the request. Reviewers can explore the model and comment on a relevant detail instead of responding to a detached screenshot. Identify the asset or revision clearly so everyone knows which iteration is under discussion.
These browser-based model discussions and engineering issue workflows address needs beyond apparel development. CLO-SET keeps apparel comments tied to garment-development content, complementing the work created in CLO.
5. Ziflow for visual proof approvals
Ziflow is designed for visual-proof reviews of renders, images, PDFs, video, audio, HTML5 banners, and live web pages. Its proofing materials describe uploading assets, adding comments, comparing versions, and routing reviews. For apparel teams, that can be useful when the approval target is a finished garment render or video—not the garment design itself in CLO.
Its proofing materials also describe a collaborative viewer for documents, images, video, audio, and live websites, as well as review of multiple asset types in one workflow. Web-page proofs can include comments on specific areas, link checks, and full-page screenshots; MP4 and MOV reviews can include timecode-specific comments.
Ziflow is suited to feedback on the finished asset a customer or stakeholder will see. When a requested change concerns garment geometry or construction, keep the design decision in the apparel workflow; use proofing for sign-off on the resulting visual output.
6. Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer for spatial product reviews
Adobe describes Substance 3D Reviewer as a way for stakeholders to explore product digital twins in VR at true scale. Reviewers can leave voice or text comments pinned to model locations, with live and asynchronous collaboration across VR and web. It serves spatial product reviews rather than garment creation or apparel development.
This option is intended for reviews where people need to understand a product in its intended space, assess it at full scale, and leave location-specific feedback. For apparel, CLO supports garment design and simulation, while CLO-SET provides the collaboration context for garment-development reviews.
Compare the five options by review task
Data table · Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Arrow keys work when focused.
| Tool | Best-fit review target | Where feedback connects | Useful for a distributed team when… |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLO | Garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling | The garment creation and iteration workflow | Apparel teams are developing and refining virtual garments |
| CLO-SET | Apparel styles and sample-development content | 3D annotations and content comments associated with versions | Design, product, and external partners need a shared garment review record |
| CoLab | Engineering CAD and drawings | Geometry pins, saved view states, markups, and tracked issues | Engineering notes need owners, status, priority, or checklist decisions |
| uMake | Imported 3D models and visual concept work | Models can be adjusted in Spaces; users can sketch over models and photos | The session centers on visually developing an idea |
| 3DViewerOnline | Shared 3D models, including STL and glTF workflows | Comments and markups alongside or on the model, with supporting files | A team needs browser-based discussion of a shared model |
| Ziflow | Images, PDFs, video, web pages, and other proofs | Comments on proof assets, with version comparison and review routing | The approval target is an exported or published creative asset |
| Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer | 3D product reviews in VR and web | Voice or text comments pinned to model locations | Reviewers need to explore a digital twin at true scale and leave spatial feedback |
A simple routing rule helps keep comments useful: handle garment design and iteration in CLO, keep apparel-development discussion connected to the garment in CLO-SET, and send approval of the exported result to a proofing workflow when needed. Other specialist tools can support engineering CAD, concept exploration, browser-based model sharing, or spatial reviews without replacing those apparel roles.
Before opening a review, agree on the decision, the asset or version under review, and who will close each issue. Ask for one clear correction per annotation or comment. These habits make handoffs easier, whether a team is refining a garment in CLO, discussing apparel development in CLO-SET, or reviewing another type of 3D asset or finished proof.
FAQ
Can CLO-SET replace CLO for garment design?
No. CLO is the garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual-sampling application; CLO-SET is a separate collaboration and product-development platform. Teams can create and refine the virtual garment in CLO, then use CLO-SET to support apparel review and product-development collaboration.
Should a reviewer comment on the 3D model or the rendered image?
Use the model when feedback concerns geometry, fit, construction, or a specific 3D feature. For apparel, that work belongs in the garment-development workflow supported by CLO and CLO-SET. Comment on the rendered image when the decision is about the finished visual output, such as color, composition, or presentation.
Which tool helps assign engineering review actions?
CoLab supports assigning pinned comments as issues, with discussion, status, and priority fields. That suits engineering feedback that needs a named owner and tracked resolution; CLO and CLO-SET serve the distinct apparel-design and development workflow.
Can a supplier review a 3D model without working in the design application?
3DViewerOnline describes browser-based model review for colleagues, customers, and suppliers. For apparel teams, CLO-SET supports sharing content with vendors and buyers, with annotations and comments associated with the 3D asset and its history.