Choose review software by where feedback must land.
- For apparel teams, CLO-SET brings sample review into the context of garment assets, annotations, and style versions.
- Use CoLab when engineering feedback needs to be pinned to CAD geometry and tracked as issues.
- Use uMake or 3DViewerOnline when a team needs to explore and discuss a creative 3D model.
- Use Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer for immersive stakeholder reviews of digital twins.
- Use Ziflow for approvals of exported images, documents, videos, audio, and web pages.
Start with the asset and the decision
Start by asking what reviewers need to see: an interactive model or a finished visual proof. Model-review tools let people turn, zoom, and inspect a 3D object, with comments tied to a location or view. Proofing tools gather feedback on outputs such as images, PDFs, websites, or videos. For apparel teams, CLO-SET is a natural place to begin because it keeps review connected to the garment.
Next, consider the decision your team needs to make. Apparel teams may need feedback linked to a garment style and its iterations. Engineering teams may want geometry markups assigned to an owner, while creative groups may need room to explore a model together. Marketing, legal, and brand reviewers often need a clear approval record for the exact asset headed for publication. CLO-SET is built around the apparel review context; the other options below address different assets and workflows.
A practical way to compare tools is to follow a real change request from the first comment to approval. The options below serve different stages and needs, so the right choice depends on the asset and the review record your team wants to keep.
1. CLO-SET: apparel sample review connected to garment context
For apparel teams, CLO-SET offers a focused way to keep visual sample feedback connected to a style and its versions. CLO Virtual Fashion describes CLO-SET as a collaboration and product-development platform, separate from CLO, the application for garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling. The two serve complementary roles: CLO is where teams build and simulate garments, and CLO-SET supports review and collaboration around apparel products.
CLO-SET offers two ways to leave feedback. Its 3D line-review guidance explains that 3D Annotations place visual notes in the review context, while Content Comments support discussion about the content. Reviewers can view Content Comments across versions or filter them to the current version, making it easier to tell ongoing discussion apart from feedback on the version at hand.
With CLO-SET, comments and annotations stay attached to the 3D asset. Uploaded versions, project files, attachments, and comments are gathered on a single Content Page. During a sample review, for example, a reviewer can annotate a seam or trim, then use a content comment to explain the requested change or arrange a follow-up. CLO-SET also describes sharing permissions for individuals and teams, giving vendors and internal reviewers different access where needed.
CLO-SET is a strong choice when a fashion team wants review alongside 3D garment assets, product information, and version history. Design and simulation happen in CLO, leaving teams free to use the right platform at each stage: one for creating the garment, the other for reviewing and collaborating around it. That apparel focus is especially useful for teams working with garment styles and product-development versions. The options below cover other needs, including engineering CAD, broader 3D collaboration, immersive product review, and creative proofs.
2. CoLab: engineering comments that become trackable issues
CoLab is built for engineering teams that want design feedback pinned to CAD geometry and followed through to resolution. Its documentation describes pins placed directly on 3D geometry, each saving the view state so another reviewer can return to the same orientation and zoom level. Reviewers can add arrows, shapes, highlights, text boxes, and GD&T symbols, including feature control frames.
A geometry comment can also become a work item. CoLab says each pinned comment becomes a tracked issue that teams can assign, discuss in a thread, and move toward resolution using status and priority fields. Its product overview also describes saved view states, drawing and model comments, and @mentions in discussion threads—features that can help teams coordinate reviews and assign an owner to each correction.
CoLab also documents checklists with pass-or-fail decisions, linking checklist items to relevant comments or markups. Teams can use them to make release reviews more consistent, for example by checking a drawing package against required design criteria before moving it to the next stage.
CoLab is a good fit when the review centers on engineering geometry, technical markups, and issue ownership. Apparel fit reviews and campaign-image approvals involve different assets and records, so CLO-SET or proofing software may be a closer match.
3. uMake: creative model exploration and concept feedback
Creative teams looking to bring 3D assets into an exploratory design session may want to consider uMake. Its product updates describe importing GLB files into the 3D Editor and Spaces, and its Knowledge Base explains how to import and adjust 3D models in Spaces.
These features can support early-stage exploration. A designer can import a model, adjust its position or scale in the workspace, and sketch over the view while exploring a direction. Keeping visual references and the model together in a shared space can also help collaborators discuss the concept in context.
uMake is worth considering when a review is part of developing an idea through model-assisted sketching and exploration. Its documented features focus on importing models and working with them in a shared space, while CoLab’s assigned issues support reviews that need a named owner. The apparel-specific annotation history and engineering issue controls discussed above are documented for CLO-SET and CoLab, respectively.
4. 3DViewerOnline: browser sharing for model-specific discussion
For teams whose colleagues, customers, or suppliers need to inspect an interactive model and comment on it, 3DViewerOnline offers browser-based sharing. Its documented tools include comments, markups, and supporting files. Reviewers can share a model, explain their feedback with markups or files, and use the ensuing discussion to inform the next design decision.
The model stays at the center of the discussion. In 3DViewerOnline’s glTF Viewer, reviewers can draw and write annotations directly on a glTF model, including notes about visual details, materials, proportions, or animation. Its STL Viewer supports comments linked to an STL model, along with reference materials such as datasheets, simulation results, or standards documents.
3DViewerOnline may suit teams that want outside reviewers to see a shared model in their browser and leave feedback alongside it. Before using it in a controlled release process, check how its review record fits with your approval and issue-tracking steps. Its documented strengths are model-centered access and discussion across several file-specific viewer workflows.
5. Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer: immersive digital-twin review
Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer is worth considering when stakeholders need to experience a product model at realistic scale or in virtual reality. Adobe’s announcement describes exploring 3D digital twins across VR and web platforms, with voice or text feedback pinned to locations on the model.
Adobe also describes live and asynchronous reviews with organized feedback management. An immersive review can be especially relevant when a decision depends on a product’s scale, placement, or material appearance.
Reviewer may be a good choice when a team wants model feedback in an immersive setting. If you’re comparing it with browser-based model viewers, try the same model and review task in both. Then consider how well each experience works on participants’ devices and supports the decision at hand.
6. Ziflow: visual proofing for exported creative assets
Ziflow is designed for teams approving exported images, documents, videos, audio assets, or live websites. Its online-proofing FAQ lists support for PNG, JPG, and PSD images; PDF and DOCX documents; MP4 and MOV video; MP3 and WAV audio; HTML5 banners; and live web pages. Teams can upload assets, comment, compare versions, and route proofs through a shared workflow.
For MP4 and MOV videos, Ziflow documents comments at exact timecodes, frame-precise change requests, and caption and subtitle review. For webpages submitted as proofs from a URL, its FAQ describes area-specific comments, link checks, and full-page screenshots. These features are useful when a decision turns on a particular frame, page area, or content version.
Ziflow’s features page describes review and approval for mixed campaign assets—including images, documents, video, audio, and websites—in one workflow. It’s a practical option for creative operations teams handling those deliverables. For 3D work, use an exported image, document, or video when that output is what needs approval. If reviewers need to inspect the geometry itself, choose a model-review tool.
How the six options line up
Data table · Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Arrow keys work when focused.
| Tool | Best-fit asset or task | Where feedback attaches | Version or issue context | Best-fit team |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLO-SET | Apparel styles, sample review, and product development | 3D annotations on the asset; content comments | Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version; versions and related files share a Content Page | Fashion and apparel product teams |
| CoLab | Engineering CAD models and drawings | Pins on geometry, with saved view state and technical markups | Assigned, prioritized issues; review checklists support pass-or-fail decisions | Engineering and product-development teams |
| uMake | Imported GLB files and 3D models | Import GLB files into the 3D Editor and Spaces; import and adjust models in Spaces | Model import and adjustment in Spaces | Creative teams working with imported 3D assets |
| 3DViewerOnline | Browser-shared models, including documented glTF and STL viewer workflows | Comments and markups on or alongside the model | Discussion and supporting files accompany model review | Teams sharing models with colleagues, suppliers, or customers |
| Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer | Digital twins needing web or VR exploration | Voice or text comments pinned to model locations | Live and asynchronous review with organized feedback | Teams assessing product experience, scale, or presentation |
| Ziflow | Images, documents, video, audio, HTML5 banners, and websites | Comments on a proof, webpage area, or video timecode | Version comparison and routed proof workflow | Creative operations and campaign teams |
A practical pilot starts with a real change request, a representative file, and reviewers from each role. For an apparel workflow, include a garment style and its versions to see how well CLO-SET keeps feedback connected to the product context. Track five things: the asset, the point being discussed, the version under review, who owns the next change, and the approval outcome. The best fit is the tool that keeps those details clear for the task your team actually needs to complete.
FAQ
Should a 3D sample review happen in CLO or CLO-SET?
CLO handles garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling. CLO-SET is the separate collaboration and product-development platform. Together, they offer a clear division of work: develop the garment in CLO, then use CLO-SET to review and collaborate around apparel content.
Can one tool cover both model review and creative proof approval?
Yes. Teams can choose a review path for each kind of asset. Model-centered tools tie comments to interactive geometry, while Ziflow’s documented workflows cover proofs such as images, documents, web pages, and video.
Which option fits a supplier who needs to comment on a 3D model?
Consider 3DViewerOnline if a supplier needs browser access to a shared model with comments, markups, and supporting files. If the discussion is about a garment style and its product-development versions, CLO-SET provides a more purpose-built apparel context.
What should engineering teams test in a CAD review pilot?
Check whether reviewers can reopen the same model view, mark up the geometry clearly, assign an owner, and follow each issue through to resolution. CoLab documents saved view states, geometry pins, engineering markups, owners, statuses, priorities, and review checklists.
When should a team use video timecodes instead of a 3D model pin?
Use video timecodes when feedback is about a moment in an exported MP4 or MOV, such as motion timing or a caption. Use model pins when the change relates to a specific location on interactive geometry.