First I must note that I am neither affiliated with Autodesk nor do I get any freebies from them and I for sure have no interest in defending them. My reply is based on using their products, primarily Revit since 2003 till date as well as the equivalent products from GraphiSOFT and Trimble, Tekla, Gehry technologies (later acquired Trimble) and Bently Systems. All of which we purchase the licenses and subscriptions for the same rates anyone here does. And sorry for not being able to go through all the replies in depth and any typos cuz I am replying via mobile...and please do remember this is my personal opinion and it is ok if anyone disagrees
PS: Prices mentioned hereinafter is how I remember them from the last renewal cycle so there is a chance they might vary from what they are, today on in the future, on the relevant website of each developer
My take on the topic:
In my opinion, for the majority of tech and BIM managers it’s not always just about the sticker price. The value of the ecosystem, the depth of integrations, and the availability of skilled users often outweigh pure licensing costs. Nonetheless, its a free world and in today’s software landscape, one could even choose an open-source option like FreeCAD at no cost even. The real question, however, is whether it delivers the same depth of features, workflow efficiency, and ecosystem support as commercial BIM authoring platforms such as Revit or the AEC Collection. After all, Autodesk isn’t forcing anyone to use Revit. The fact that it continues to dominate the market comes down to good reasons, some of these reasons in my opinion are:
- One of the best, if not the best, after sales customer support
- Widespread adoption in large projects, from clients, architects, engineers, and consultants.
- Integration within the Autodesk ecosystem (Navisworks, Civil 3D, AutoCAD, etc.) which is a very valuable PLUS.
- Despite its complex architecture and hardware demands, it offers workflows that other platforms struggle to fully replicate.
- A large, if not the largest, user base and knowledge network (training, forums, expertise, talent pool). Where I have no doubt that if other developers are to invest in these, especially in Europe, at he same scale Autodesk does, their prices will shoot sky high to cover the overheads...unless of course there is someone out there that believes all this comes for free.
As for the comments I read about the Dev team and not much efforts being put in developing the software, sometimes and certain features might lead some users (especially beginners) to a state of hopelessness and frustration but the blame cannot be entirely the Dev team's fault. Throwing such comments at them is unfair and harsh and for that I would ask how often did you participate in the programs and test groups Autodesk has and how many survey calls did you take, or at least how many of those 5 mins click surveys, the latest of which was on Assemblies in Revit and Inventor, did you send at last but not least how many ideas did you start, and how often did you defend them and how many users actually supported your Ideas if any at all? Now how many of those were offered by the alternative software developers which you believe is cheaper?
In terms of Price and for the sake of comparison I would pick Autodesk’s solution vs that of Graphisoft because I often hear from some users (not on this forum) the same comment "Archicad is much cheaper".
- Revit + BIM Collaborate Pro: around $490/month or $4,289/year per user.
- Archicad Collaborate (The equivalent to the above): around €440-450/month or €3,200/year which is ca. $484/month or $3,410/year equivalent.
- For Archicad Studio: €2,750/year (ca $2,970/year), which is about $300/year cheaper than Revit stand alone....yet almost the same price if one goes for the 3 years bundle
So while Archicad Collaborate is close in cost to Revit + Collaborate Pro, at first glance it could appear slightly cheaper on annual pricing. But in practice, once you add in regional taxes, local support packages, or additional tools, the difference can narrow to the point of being marginal/negligible. Adding tokens to the equation, for small firms who do tiny projects only, would reshuffle the equation. So contrary to what some users might think, Archicad isn’t “cheap” compared to Revit. And while headline numbers suggest a small saving, it remains the tag price and the real comparison depends on:
- How the firm works (solo architect vs. large integrated practice).
- How the firm manages time allocation and overheads vs direct costs
- size of project (Maybe Tokens is a viable option. When combined with bullet point 2 above it can reduce costs greatly to even less than what one may believe is the cheapest)
- Which ecosystem your collaborators use (interoperability often trumps cost).
- The value of Autodesk’s broader ecosystem versus Graphisoft’s lighter but elegant approach (questionable).
The Bottom Line is, some of Autodesk’s competitors may appear to be marginally cheaper on paper, but it isn’t “significantly cheaper” once you compare equivalent collaborative setups. The true decision often comes down to workflow needs, ecosystem compatibility, and long-term support—not just the annual subscription cost. Otherwise, any investment tends to become expensive if such factors has not been properly considered and well thought of in advance. Same like buying more than one consumes, parking a lambo in the garage and not driving and a million other example...
As for the question or request "Please add the 'in-place modeling' feature to Revit LT—you’ll make a lot of users very happy!" ... They are always open for suggestions and ideas. For that there is the ideas Forum. Yet again if you want In-Place modeling and another wishes for View Filters to be added and someone else would love to have some other feature, Revit LT will be no longer LT 🙂 I would also love it if Mercedes adds the some if not all the features of the Maybach S Class into the A200 and still sell the later for the same price 🙂
