Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Onshape vs. Fusion360

AZΘRÆNAZΘRÆN Member Posts: 21
Would those with experience tell me how Onshape and Fusion360 differ and compare to one another, other than the fact that Onshape is cloud based and Fusion is not.


  • konstantin_shiriazdanovkonstantin_shiriazdanov Member Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If to speak abought solid body modeling, in context design, and sheet metal - onshape has more advanced capabilities (if i'm not mistaken fusion still hasn't public sheet metal features). From the other side fusion is all in one CAD/CAM/CAE software, has rather good surfacing features (free-form tool), mesh editing and better drawings. I would say that fusion has wide opportunities but onshape provides better in-depth capabilities/
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 573 ✭✭✭
    I'm just a rank amateur, but Onshape seems much better organized to me and easier to use.  F360 seems like it is being developed sort of willy-nilly.

    F360 does a pretty good job of CAM, though.
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,458 PRO
    I remember someone wrapping whole fusion project in one word that says it all: con-fusion 360 =)

    I haven't dig deep enough to claim otherwise, if software doesn't feel good from the start it's like going for marathon with too small shoes (IMHO).
  • AZΘRÆNAZΘRÆN Member Posts: 21
    I like that conFusion 360
  • AZΘRÆNAZΘRÆN Member Posts: 21
     Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!
  • paul_brittonpaul_britton Member Posts: 36 ✭✭
    May also be of relevance..... Fusion 360 needs 64bit Windows..... Onshape doesn't
  • michał_1michał_1 Member, Developers Posts: 214 ✭✭✭
    Fusion is more capable, at least in core modeling. It is "all in one" type of CAD. It's cheaper.
    Some examples from Fusion:

    The problem with Fusion is a number of bugs. It's not suitable for large assemblies.

    Onshape have cleaner UI and better UX in general. Collaboration is beyond what any competitor can offer. Implementation of new features takes into consideration most common workflows and tries to improve them, so it's not just a new tool but a whole workflow. FeatureScript can offer more than just API.
    It looks like Onshape devs have a much clearer vision of their product, at least when compared with Fusions development, which looks chaotic.

    Honest advice, try both and you will know.

  • AZΘRÆNAZΘRÆN Member Posts: 21
  • walterwalter Member Posts: 41 ✭✭
    have you tried

    DesignSpark Mechanical, a Free 3D Modeler Derived from SpaceClaim

  • juan_avilesjuan_aviles Member Posts: 78 ✭✭
    When I first tried Fusion I hated it.  I found OnShape and decided it was going to be my new setup.  No CAM however was tough because not only does Fusion have CAM, it's some of the best CAM going.  We have abandoned GibbsCAM at work in favor of the free HSMXpress from Autodesk (which is the same CAM in Fusion).  At first I thought I could use OS for modeling and Fusion for machining, but the real benefit of Fusion is having it all in one place so I learned Fusion and now have no plans on going back.

    I'm not sure why I stopped by here today...I never use OnShape anymore since the private documents were axed.  OnShape called me a few times and I kept telling them the same thing...if they can get Fusion CAM into OnShape, I'll take another look.  Until then I'll continue to use Fusion. 
  • christian_schifferchristian_schiffer Member Posts: 1
    If to speak abought solid body modeling, in context design, and sheet metal - onshape has more advanced capabilities (if i'm not mistaken fusion still hasn't public sheet metal features). From the other side fusion is all in one CAD/CAM/CAE software, has rather good surfacing features (free-form tool), mesh editing and better drawings. I would say that fusion has wide opportunities but onshape provides better in-depth capabilities/
    Fusion 360 now has sheetmetal.
  • collin_reisdorfcollin_reisdorf Member Posts: 1
    As of May 2019 I have spent a lot of time using Fusion 360 for design to 3D printing. Autodesk recently removed it from the MacOS app store, which makes it a pain to install and run (they can't just install it in the Applications folder like every other normal app maker). I'm just beginning with learning OnShape seriously now and can agree that the UI is much better than Fusion 360 (con-fusion is apt but it's not terrible). 

    The loss of CAM integration is a bit disappointing, and Fusion's integraded 3D print button to automatically send the STL to Cura is nice too. I'll post back in a couple weeks when I've got some more experience, but so far for Parametric 3D design, Onshape appears to be a bit more polished and just as responsive.
  • konstantin_shiriazdanovkonstantin_shiriazdanov Member Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Really, the two main things that convinced me to switch were the data management capabilities of Onshape and the reliability. I ran into multiple bugs and things just acting weird in Fusion, which I don't experience in Onshape. Also, with Onshape, I can design a part for one project, then easily use that part in other projects while managing revision control. Fusion just is not set up to manage CAD data where any sort of professional workflows are required. You might as well just be storing your files in dropbox.

    Agree, for some reason they don't take care about reusing engeneering data, not even speaking about configurations.
  • GlenDGlenD Member, OS Professional Posts: 240 PRO
    Had comments from a non pro user of F360 which got me to go back and have another look see. He liked the initial screen with less icons and so less confusing. I found that it looked nice but required many more steps to get what I was looking for. Kept clicking right mouse button to revolve view and getting short cut menu. Had to find revolve button as separate function. More mouse clicks with a stop start kind of mode.
    Generally a lot more mouse clicks.
    Was really surprised by number of crashes. One was during start of program when F360 was just unresponsive. One while trying to use the 'hole' function. Nothing special going on at the time. Last one was while trying to modify a large file import (has been sluggish in OS as well).
    Not used to having program crashes since working with OS. Slow downs at times 'yes' when dealing with large documents.

    My general take was that there are way more steps in F360 to perform the same function.
    OS hole function takes care of threading while making a hole where as F360 needs a second operation to add threads to the hole.
  • owen_sparksowen_sparks Member, Developers Posts: 2,660 PRO
     Kept clicking right mouse button to revolve view and getting short cut menu. Had to find revolve button as separate function. 
    Same.  In both cases you can change the mouse controls to "Like CAD Brand xyz" but not just set what you want them to do, and there were no common button layout "brands" between F360 and Onshape.  It's like they're going out of their way make it difficult.  However I did find it fairly easy to set a 3dconnexion device to behave the same way in both applications to avoid this frustration.

    For me the great thing about Onshape is I can be running a laser cutter on the shop floor, designing the next part in a browser rather than returning to my desk while the current part is running, and natter on the forum at the same time :-)

    The worst thing is they still can't spell OnShape properly.

    Also @john_mcclary please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

    Cheers, Owen S.
    Business Systems and Configuration Controller
    HWM-Water Ltd
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 573 ✭✭✭
    Please let me interject my ongoing plea for an intermediate Onshape Tier for hobbyists, crafters, and very small businesses that need proprietary files.  I'd much rather put the upgrade money spent for Alibre toward a mid-tier Onshape license.
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,234 PRO
    True, that is a big complaint I hear on most YouTube reviews of Onshape. They abondoned Onshape when they could no longer use it commercially for free, and cannot justify or afford a full seat.

    There are two ways to sell a product. Sell very few for $$$ or sell many for $. Onshape is going for the professional market, which is leaving out a huge number of people that go to Fusion just for that cost savings.

    The problem is what can Onshape actually Limit for a mid-tier user? Onshape is good about every user can use every feature. (with the exception of the top tier enterprise features, which only enterprise level companies would actually want/use)
    The only thing they could do is what they did before. Limit the qty of private docs. But who would pay for a limited number of docs? maybe it is a limited Docs per year model instead?
  • larry_haweslarry_hawes Member Posts: 478 PRO
    edited May 2019
     But who would pay for a limited number of  (private) docs? ..
    I would...
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,234 PRO
    What I'm saying is, How many documents would you say would be your cut-off point.

    Maybe charge a fee on making a doc private. Treat them like a pro user with access to edit private documents, but charge a reasonable fee to make a document private or something. on top of low annual or monthly subscription. Small annual sub is basically to allow editing of existing private docs and rights to commercialize.

    You could give free users the ability to store private docs too for the same fee. but they cannot edit unless they make it public, then pay the fee again to make it private when they are done. If they only need to do that a few times a year, they only shell out a hundred bucks, rather than a thousand and a half.

    Or they could choose to stay purely free like the current model.

    Sounds like hassle, but that would fit every level of user up to pro all at once. This should scale well too, the more someone uses Onshape the more they pay from $0 up to Pro$, at that point they can justify buying a full seat, or end up paying more than a pro user on a busy year. Kind of like going over on your dataplan on your phone. Some months it is worth the extra $15 to keep a very low dataplan. Or micro-transactions in free-to-play video games. I feel like an arse for suggesting they do a micro-transaction model, but when it's done FAIR and correct, it can be a good model for everyone.
  • Cris_BowersCris_Bowers Member Posts: 281 PRO
    I'd pay extra for some cosmetics. Perhaps changing the background color.
  • larry_haweslarry_hawes Member Posts: 478 PRO
    Uh oh... This is probably best in a new thread but...

    I considered Fusion 360 when abandoning OtherCAD as fast as I could because the interface made me stupid. OS interface was like a breath of fresh and I was on board right away, hoping I could learn and become proficient enough to create the proprietary product I had envisioned. The initial $1500 (if I remember correctly) was steep for my purposes but had no options if I wanted to keep my docs private. 

    I am still working on that single project that could live in maybe 3 - 4 private docs quite easily but they need to be kept private. I do other stuff that can be public but these others docs must remain private. Is there a plan that would accommodate my (and similar) needs?

    I am most likely in a very small minority and the size of that minority will dictate and kind of subscription or limited private document plan that would be worth the effort, from a strictly business standpoint. 

    Designing that plan could be complex as illustrated and at the end of the day does Onshape profit from such a plan? Is it worth the effort? From a strict ROI business point of view perhaps not, but would it expand OS' user base and if so how?

    Would there simply be a bunch of users who are not willing to pay for a high end professional CAD system with no future to bring on board to the PRO level? Or would it expand the user base, expose the features and greatness that is OS to those who need only very limited private doc access/security?

    Again likely complex but doable as your suggestions illustrate but the big question remains, "Why would OS do such a thing?" What's in it for the company? And the user? I for one would be on board immediately, but that's one user. How many others would actually take advantage of such a plan? Another big question, and changing plan policy can have a devastating effect on the user base so it must be done right.

    Did people abandon OS for Fusion because of the new (kinda old now) private doc policy? Anecdotally yes. That would concern me as a company but the OS policy gurus decided it was worth it to perhaps create a more professional user base? As good a plan any I suppose. And so what if it leaves users like myself with no options but an expensive one for their limited purposes? Why would/should OS care if the goal is to create a professional user base? 
  • 3dcad3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,458 PRO
    Do you guys remember why 'free 10 private docs + ability to edit unlimited docs owned by pro' came to end in first place? .. Misuse - some brilliant people thought it's a good idea to have single pro license creating docs and assigning them to free users to work with.. So who to blame?

    I don't see limiting amount of docs as option, if you are cheap enough all you need is one single doc for all work. Just create new branch from empty workspace.

    I think the only option would be to bring back monthly payment option if license not in full use. Obviously, the platform would probably enable a lot more intuitive payment plans according to usage than payment by period of time. 
  • michael3424michael3424 Member Posts: 573 ✭✭✭
    I understand that Onshape may never have an interest in (or business case for) supporting a middle tier, but if one doesn't ask, one doesn't get.  Most companies regularly evaluate their marketing plans and and at some point they may decide a middle tier makes sense.

    So far as private documents go, I'd probably want a couple of dozen with perhaps one or two hundred parts.  That would probably cover a few years of my "business" use.
  • cedric_eveleigh392cedric_eveleigh392 Member Posts: 26 EDU
    I much prefer Onshape over Fusion for CAD, but I would really like it if Onshape had CAM on par with Fusion.
Sign In or Register to comment.