We Tested 7 Text-to-CAD Tools – Are They Actually Useful for Engineers?

It’s an exciting idea, especially given how time-consuming it can be to move from concept to CAD in the early stages of product development. If AI can speed up that process or even generate usable models from a single prompt—that could be a real breakthrough. But it also raises questions. Can a tool truly understand what you mean when you type something like “a bike frame with aerodynamic tubing” or “an enclosure for a handheld scanner”?

To find out, we ran tests on seven platforms. Five of them — Zoo, AdamCAD, CADGPT, Vondy (AI CAD Generator), and CADScribe — attempt to generate usable CAD-ready outputs such as STL, STEP, SCAD, or DXF. These form the core of our review.

The other two — Leo AI and OpenArt — work differently. They don’t produce CAD files, but instead generate 2D images and illustrations. While not suitable for engineering workflows, they can be useful for product designers (e.g. concept ideation, creative sketches, and technical presentation visuals). We’ll cover them briefly at the end as extra tools.

We approached each one like a typical user—with practical prompts and a critical eye.

Quick Takeaway

These tools aren’t yet a replacement for professional CAD software, but some are already useful for simple prototyping, educational demos, and visual exploration. Out of the seven we tested, five generate fairly accurate CAD files, while two focus more on concept visuals and presentation sketches. With further development, they may evolve into practical assistants in an engineer’s workflow.

How We Tested the Tools

To evaluate the current landscape of text-to-CAD tools, we ran a consistent set of prompts through each platform and observed how they responded. This allowed us to compare not just outputs, but also usability, file formats, and how the tools handled both functional and creative tasks.

Note: We tested only the free versions of each tool. Paid plans may offer more features or better results, which are not reflected in this review.

We divided the test into two main categories:

Functional Parts — practical, engineering-style prompts to test how well each tool handles varying complexity. Each tool received the same three functional prompts:

Simple prompt: “A 20mm long cylinder with an outer diameter of 5mm and an inner diameter of 3mm”
Medium prompt: “A 24-tooth circular gear with a 2 mm module, 20° pressure angle, 30 mm hub diameter, 10 mm shaft bore, six 5 mm mounting holes, and an 8 mm thickness with standard involute teeth”
High-complexity prompt: “A 150x100x50 mm manifold block with three 10 mm inlets on one side, two 15 mm outlets on the opposite side, and internal branching channels connecting them. Ensure smooth transitions for flow, external fillets, and 8 mm mounting holes in each corner”

Creative & Artistic Models — imaginative or stylized prompts to explore the tools’ flexibility:

Simple prompt: “An animal—cat, dog, bird, or a fantasy combination”
Medium prompt: “A tree with twisting roots and branches”
High-complexity prompt: “An island with rocky boulders and a stratovolcano in the middle”

These examples helped surface how each tool interprets real-world tasks, balances technical fidelity with creativity, and supports downstream use cases like editing, file export, or visual refinement. We’ll now break down the results tool by tool.

1. Tool Review: Zoo

Zoo is an AI-powered CAD generation tool for early-stage design and ideation. It has a simple, clean interface with both a browser-based version and a more capable desktop app (Zoo Design Studio). Users get 20 free credits per month, and models can be exported in common formats like FBX, GLB, GITF, OBJ, PLY, STL, STEP, and KCL. Parametric editing in Zoo Design Studio allows quick adjustments via sliders, and outputs can be refined through text-to-edit prompts.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

For simple functional parts, like a 20 mm-long cylinder with specified diameters, Zoo delivered accurate and editable 3D models. The parametric editing features were a standout: dimensions could be adjusted in real time with sliders, and variant models could be regenerated with small prompt changes. This made testing ideas and refining basic parts fast and intuitive.

However, results dropped off sharply with medium and high-complexity designs. For a 24-tooth gear with detailed specs, the tool failed to produce an accurate model, and for the manifold block with multiple ports and internal channels, it could not generate a result at all, even when provided with clear, detailed instructions.

In the creative and artistic category, results were similarly limited. Zoo attempted to generate models like a cat, a tree, and an island with a volcano, but the outputs were either visually incoherent or too simplified to be meaningful. These outcomes suggest that the tool is better suited to geometric precision than to freeform or organic creativity.

Strengths

Limitations

Key Takeaways

Best Used For

Accurate results for simple mechanical components

Performs reliably when provided with specific dimensional inputs.

Fails on medium and high-complexity engineering tasks

More sophisticated geometries could not be generated during our tests.

Promising for quick ideation and prototyping of simple mechanical parts

Valuable for speed and direct dimensional control.

Rapid concept modeling for basic components

Not intended for full design development or artistic exploration.

Live parametric controls

Allows real-time adjustments of model features without starting from scratch.

Not built for creative outputs

Organic or artistic prompts produced underwhelming results or failed completely.

Best for workflows focused on rapid concept modeling

Rather than artistic exploration.

Early-stage engineering workflows

Quick part iteration before detailed CAD work.

CAD-friendly exports

Supports FBX, GLB, GITF, OBJ, PLY, STL, STEP, and KCL formats, enabling direct use in CAD and CAM pipelines.

Web app is feature-light

Key functionality is only available in the desktop version.

Performs best with precise dimensional inputs

Desktop version recommended for full features.

Prototyping using CAD-friendly formats

For quick outputs.

Collaboration features

Shareable links and prompt refinement tools aid teamwork and iteration.

Overwrites prior model when generating new one

Makes side-by-side comparisons difficult.

Team-based basic design reviews

Where sharing is important.

2. Tool Review: AdamCAD

AdamCAD is an AI-powered CAD assistant with two generation modes — Parametric for dimension-driven parts and Creative for free-form designs. The browser-based tool has a clean, intuitive interface. Parametric mode provides adjustable dimensions, while Creative mode offers stylistic controls such as lighting and texture. Exports include STL and SCAD.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

AdamCAD handled simple and medium-complexity mechanical parts well. The 20 mm cylinder and 24-tooth gear were generated accurately, with listed editable parameters. The high-complexity manifold block was generated in a simplified form but included fillets and customizable channels.

In Creative mode, results were more stylized and not always ready for 3D printing — the fantasy animal had non-functional features, and the tree lacked leaves but had well-formed roots and branches. The island and volcano model was visually detailed enough for concept art or terrain design.

We also tested Creative prompts in Parametric mode, which produced technically functional outputs but without the expressive qualities of Creative mode, confirming that each mode works best for its intended purpose.

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
Dual-mode generation Parametric and Creative options cover both technical and artistic needs.	Creative outputs lack print readiness Generated models may need cleanup for 3D printing.	Well-balanced for early-stage CAD workflows Allows both editable parts and imaginative 3D ideas.	Early engineering and concept art Fast prototyping, educational use, and concept exploration.
Highly editable models Interactive sliders and inputs allow quick, precise modifications to geometry.	Visual refinement only in creative mode Texture/lighting controls are available, but geometry editing is limited.	Live editing panels give control without complexity Refine via parameter lists before export.	Prototyping and design iteration When adjustable parameters are needed.
Fast, intuitive workflow Easy interface.	Complex or custom designs need manual tweaks Some designs may require more detailed CAD work for accuracy.	Not a replacement for advanced CAD suites Best for early-stage work.	Educational and exploration uses Exploring designs with quick changes.
File export options Supports STL and SCAD, suitable for modeling and 3D printing.	No advanced desktop version Currently only available as a browser-based tool.	Supports structured refinement pre-export Adjust without rewriting prompts.	Cross-tool sharing Standard export formats.
Refine & Export workflow Models are paired with parameter lists for in-tool iteration.			Parametric development Tuning parts in-tool.

3. Tool Review: CADGPT

CADGPT, available via YesChat.ai, is a browser-based AI assistant that turns natural language prompts into structured DWG/DXF-style code. It requires no login and does not produce visual previews, focusing entirely on text-based CAD scripting. It can also generate design suggestions and explain CAD concepts, supporting tasks like translating measurements into DXF code or handling multi-feature parts.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

CADGPT performed reliably on parametric prompts, correctly interpreting dimensions for parts like the simple cylinder, 24-tooth gear, and manifold block. For simpler parts, it produced well-structured DXF code ready to paste into a CAD tool. For more complex descriptions, the tool broke down the design into logical geometric steps, explaining features and inferred constraints.

CADGPT did not provide direct 3D or 2D visual outputs and file downloads during testing. Instead, users must copy and paste the generated code into their own CAD software for visualization and further editing.

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
No-install use Fully browser-based and works without registration for quick access.	No visual feedback Does not generate preview images or visual output alongside code.	Lightweight, text-based drafting companion Converts written specifications into machine-readable CAD code.	Drafting logic and manual CAD code generation For engineers comfortable with external CAD tools.
Readable CAD logic Returns well-commented DXF-style code, ideal for manual import.	Manual handling needed Requires copying code into a CAD editor for visualization.	Strong geometric reasoning and script clarity Useful for fast ideation or educational purposes.	Engineering drafting From precise text specifications.
Solid geometric reasoning Good interpretation of technical dimensions and features.	No DWG download Does not reliably deliver direct DWG files as download links.	Effective for structured mechanical prompts Suited to technical users.	Parametric design coding Without in-tool visual previews.
Useful for mechanical basics Responsive to structured engineering prompts with clear parameters.		Good for generating clean, functional drafting code Not for artistic work.

4. Tool Review: Vondy AI CAD Generator

Vondy’s AI CAD Generator is hidden within the wider Vondy platform — it must be accessed by typing “CAD” into the site’s search bar. It supports DWG, DXF, STL, and STEP formats in theory, but in practice, file delivery is inconsistent.

The user experience is styled like a chat. It begins with prompts asking for model type (e.g., architectural, mechanical), preferred CAD format, and descriptive input. While onboarding is quick and conversational, some friction arises in navigating how to actually prompt the tool and access the generated outputs.

Actual access to file downloads is often inconsistent. While the assistant frequently confirms that files have been created, actual download links often fail to appear.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

Vondy handled prompts for simple and complex parts with detailed written breakdowns. For the cylinder prompt, it confirmed the correct dimensions and claimed to generate STL and DWG files — but no working download links were provided.

The 24-tooth gear request was met with design details and an alleged DWG file name, but instead of a direct file, Vondy provided DXF-style code snippets for manual use. The high-complexity manifold block received a thorough description, with claims of generated STEP, STL, and DWG files, but again, only text-based file content was provided — no direct downloads.

For creative prompts, Vondy gave structured CAD layer plans and drafting suggestions (e.g., terrain, boulders, volcano features, and water layers for the island prompt) that could guide manual modeling. However, without functional file delivery, these remain conceptual aids rather than ready-to-use CAD outputs.

Vondy Results Across Functional and Creative Prompts

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
Conversational prompting Step-by-step queries help clarify user intent even without technical CAD skills.	Unreliable file delivery CAD files are often not downloadable, even when confirmed by the assistant.	Useful for brainstorming and drafting Strong on descriptive planning, weak on actual file delivery.	Drafting assistance and early visual planning When you don’t need ready-to-use CAD files.
Format awareness Promises support for DWG, DXF, STL, and STEP formats, aligning with standard CAD outputs.	Gated outputs Free users hit credit limits fast, and previews/downloads are often locked.	Wide theoretical format support But free version restricts access to actual downloads.	Exploratory drafting Idea development before CAD modeling.
Creative flexibility Accepts a wide range of design types — from mechanical to artistic and architectural.	Lack of precise modeling Descriptive and 2D-focused; lacks parametric control or real 3D CAD editing.	Promising for fast ideation But practical use limited without paid plan.	Architectural or scene layout planning Layer organization over exact modeling.
Layer-based drafting guidance Offers structured CAD layer suggestions for complex scenes.			Better for conceptual layouts than finished models Not manufacturing-ready.

5. Tool Review: CADScribe

CADScribe is a browser-based AI tool that turns short text prompts into 3D CAD models in STEP or STL format. The interface is minimal, with a single prompt box and a basic 3D viewer, and usage in the free tier is limited to 10 prompts/messages.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

For simple design, CADScribe performed well, interpreting prompts like the cylinder and producing usable CAD files. For moderate complexity (such as the gear with specific parameters), results diverged from expectations, with geometry that did not match the request.

For high-complexity designs like the manifold block, CADScribe could not generate a model. Input length restrictions cut off key details from the prompt, and the system gave no useful error feedback.

CADScribe does not fully support creative prompts, as results were limited and schematic, and all tests produced very basic outputs.

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
STEP and STL exports Supports CAD-friendly formats for downstream use.	Inaccurate mid-complexity outputs Struggles with interpreting gears or designs with many parameters.	Lightweight for quick drafts Best for straightforward geometry.	Quick single-part generation for simple parts Clear, short prompts.
Fast response for basic prompts Returns simple models within seconds.	Query length limits Longer, detailed prompts may be cut off or not processed.	Low-barrier entry Good for occasional use.	Early-stage drafts When speed matters more than complexity.
Minimalist, accessible interface Straightforward for new users to test basic functionality.	Complex geometry often fails Best with short inputs.		Educational demos Basic CAD examples.

Beyond CAD: Visual-Only Tools

6. Tool Review: OpenArt

OpenArt is primarily an AI image-generation platform with a CAD Drawing Generator tool for producing 2D CAD-style illustrations. It outputs JPG, PNG, or SVG files — no editable 3D CAD formats like STEP or STL. Although not intended for engineering use, the platform offers a smooth web-based experience, with 40 one-time trial credits for testing. It also includes editing features like inpainting, and chat-to-edit, making it well suited for refining visuals, creating presentation-ready sketches, or exploring early creative concepts, even if the results cannot be used in CAD workflows.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

For mechanical prompts, OpenArt produced attractive 2D illustrations with the resemblance to the requested geometry. The cylinder prompt returned decorative shapes with hollow centers. The gear prompt yielded stylish drawings inspired by mechanical forms. On the high-complexity manifold block, OpenArt delivered photorealistic concept art that looked impressive but had no engineering utility.

Artistic prompts, as expected, played to OpenArt’s strengths — the animal, stylized tree, and island with a volcano all produced vibrant, well-composed illustrations. To make outputs more useful for design or manufacturing, it helps to specify the purpose of the image directly in the prompt.

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
Image-based editing Inpainting, chat-to-edit, upscaling, and more for intuitive and precise refinements.	No CAD model export Does not support export to STEP, STL, or other editable CAD formats.	Not an engineering tool Best for creative 2D concept generation.	Concept art, 2D visuals, illustrations Fast, presentation-ready images.
Fast generation with multiple variants Produces 2–4 variations quickly, ideal for fast-paced visual exploration.	Not dimensionally accurate Outputs are illustrative and lack measurement fidelity required for engineering.	A tool for imagining, not building Suited to conceptual and artistic work.	Visual exploration Creative sketching and mood imagery.
Creative flexibility Accepts a wide range of use cases — from mechanical parts to landscapes and characters.	2D-only design scope No support for generating 3D models or depth-aware CAD objects.	Credit-limited trials Small creative projects.	Illustration and storytelling Non-technical design visuals.
Accessible UX for non-CAD users Easy for hobbyists or designers to explore ideas without technical know-how.	Free usage limited by daily credits Higher quality outputs require plan upgrade.

7. Tool Review: Leo AI

Leo AI focuses on concept ideation and is available in both browser and desktop versions. The tool generates multiple image variations per prompt. The PNG exports allow for basic viewing, but geometry cannot be edited, and no CAD-friendly formats like STEP or STL are available in the free plan.

What Came Out? Performance on Test Prompts

Leo performed well across simple, medium, and high-complexity mechanical prompts, producing multiple rendered images for each request. While these were coherent and visually representative, they were not engineering-ready. For example, the cylinder and gear looked correct in concept but lacked the detail and dimensional accuracy required for manufacturing.

In creative prompts, outputs were visually engaging — a stylized tree or an island, in particular, were notable for composition and detail. However, like the mechanical outputs, these are best viewed as concept art rather than functional designs.

Strengths	Limitations	Key Takeaways	Best Used For
Fast onboarding Quick sign-up and an optional walkthrough make the tool immediately accessible.	No CAD-format support Outputs are limited to image files, no STEP, STL, or editable 3D models.	Excels at rapid concept generation Handy brainstorming companion.	Fast visual ideation and early design sketches Quick sketches or mood board assets.
Multi-version rendering Each prompt returns three image variants, speeding up the ideation process.	Non-editable geometry Users cannot modify shapes or dimensions once a concept is rendered.	Good for exploring options quickly Pick a preferred concept for preview.	Quick concept selection Before detailed modeling elsewhere.
Conceptual and visual flexibility Good for early-stage creative visuals and rough mock-ups.		Basic 3D previews Concept viewing, not CAD.	Creative inspiration Presentation-friendly visuals.

Conclusion: Are Text-to-CAD Tools Ready for Engineering Work?

For simple parametric parts, tools like Zoo, AdamCAD, and CADScribe delivered usable models that could be refined or exported in engineering-friendly formats like STL or STEP. In contrast, tools like Vondy excelled in concept generation but fell short when it came to dimensioned, CAD-ready geometry.

Some platforms, such as CADGPT and Text to CAD (YesChat.ai), stood out for generating precise drafting code in DWG/DXF—offering utility for engineers comfortable with manual refinement in CAD software. Meanwhile, only AdamCAD bridged both technical and creative workflows with adjustable parametric models and a dedicated creative mode.

It’s also clear that not every tool in this space is aimed at engineering. Leo AI and OpenArt, for example, serve better as creative companions, producing quick visuals, sketches, and presentation assets rather than practical CAD models. They fill a useful niche in ideation, but they cannot replace CAD-ready geometry.

The biggest limitations across the board? Lack of control, inconsistent file exports, and minimal support for complex assemblies or functional constraints.

In short: these tools aren’t yet a substitute for professional CAD software—but for quick prototyping, visual exploration, or teaching purposes, several are genuinely useful today. With continued development, they may soon become assistants in the engineer’s toolkit.

Verdict Table: How the Tools Compare

Tool	Accuracy	Creative Capability	Export Formats	Editing Support	Paid Plan Pricing	Best Use Case
Zoo	★★☆☆☆	★☆☆☆☆	FBX, GLB, GITF, OBJ, PLY, STL, STEP, and KCL	Parametric sliders, text-to-edit	Plus: $20/mo, Pro: $99/mo, Team: $399/mo	Quick prototyping of simple mechanical parts
AdamCAD	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆	STL, SCAD	Parametric + creative sliders/editing	Standard: $9.99/mo, Pro: $29.99/mo	Dual-mode: early engineering and concept art
CADGPT	★★★☆☆	★☆☆☆☆	DXF, DWG	None (code-only)	YesChat plan: Pro: $8/mo, Ultra: $16/mo, Unlimited: $40/mo	Drafting logic and manual CAD code generation
Vondy	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆	STL, STEP, DWG, DXF (claimed, but downloads unreliable)	Conversational only, no parametrics	Plus: $19/mo, Pro: $49/mo, Business: $99/mo	Drafting assistance and early visual planning
CADScribe	★★★☆☆	★☆☆☆☆	STEP, STL	None	$4.99mo	Quick single-part generation for simple parts
Leo AI	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	PNG	None (visual-only)	Pro: $15/mo, Business: $1800/year	Fast visual ideation and early design sketches
OpenArt	★★★★☆	★★★★★	PNG, JPG, SVG	Image-based editing only	$7–29/mo (Starter to Advanced)	Concept art, 2D visuals, illustrations