Cut list optimizer comparison: SawNest vs OptiCutter vs CutListOptimizer
SawNest publishes this comparison and is one of the products being compared. We separate documented features from test results, link the source pages, and do not claim that one heuristic is globally optimal for every cutting job.
Choose by stock type and by what you can verify.
For a quick plywood layout, all three tools cover rectangular sheet parts. OptiCutter and SawNest also publish dedicated linear-stock workflows. SawNest keeps its calculation in the browser and publishes versioned fixtures for kerf, trim, grain, exact-fit, and terminal-kerf behavior.
The best choice for a real project is the tool that places every required part, respects the same constraints, leaves a safe and practical cut sequence, and still returns the same result after you independently check the input.
What each public product page documents
“Available” means the feature appears on the linked public vendor page. It does not score output quality, price the feature, or guarantee that it is available in every tier.
Swipe to compare every column →
| Capability | SawNest | OptiCutter | CutListOptimizer | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rectangular sheet layouts | Yes | Yes | Yes | Plywood, MDF, melamine, glass, and other rectangular stock. |
| Linear stock planning | Yes | Yes | Not presented as a homepage feature | Boards, trim, molding, pipe, tube, and bar stock need a one-dimensional model. |
| Kerf allowance | Yes | Yes | Yes | A layout that ignores the blade path can fail even when nominal part lengths add up. |
| Grain or rotation controls | Per part | Available | Available | Visible face grain can make a geometrically valid rotation unusable. |
| Edge-trim allowance | Yes | Available | Verify in the current app | Damaged or factory edges reduce the clean rectangle available for parts. |
| CSV workflow | Export | Import and export | Import and export | A portable part list makes independent checks and revisions easier. |
| Where project data is calculated | In the browser | Cloud-hosted service | Online account and sync are available | Data handling matters when a job contains customer or production information. |
| Public test fixtures | Versioned JSON and ZIP | No equivalent linked from the compared calculator pages | No equivalent linked from the compared homepage | Published inputs make boundary behavior independently repeatable. |
Use the same stock, parts, and rules in every tool.
Start with one 48 × 96 inch sheet, a 1/8-inch kerf, 1/4-inch trim on every edge, and seven cabinet parts: two 23 1/4 × 34 1/2 sides with rotation locked; one 22 1/2 × 28 1/2 bottom; two 21 7/8 × 28 3/8 shelves; and two 4 × 28 1/2 stretchers.
SawNest's published fixture expects one sheet, all seven parts placed, and 80.6186% finished-part yield. Record sheet count, unplaced parts, grain compliance, useful offcuts, and whether the proposed cuts match the equipment you will use. A lower sheet count is not a win if a required constraint was omitted.
- SawNest
- SawNest sheet optimizer →
- SawNest
- SawNest public benchmarks →
- External vendor
- OptiCutter sheet optimizer →
- External vendor
- OptiCutter linear calculator →
- External vendor
- CutListOptimizer →