Choose the review record that matches the decision.
- Use CLO-SET for apparel sample review, with annotations attached to garment locations and comments associated with content versions.
- Use CoLab when engineering reviewers need comments pinned to CAD geometry, technical markups, and assigned issues.
- Use 3DViewerOnline for browser discussion of a shared model; consider uMake when the task is importing a 3D model into its editor or Spaces.
- Use Ziflow for image, document, video, audio, HTML5, and live-web proofs, as listed in its proofing FAQ.
For supplier or customer feedback after a 3D review, decide whether comments belong on navigable model geometry or on an exported image, PDF, website, or video. CLO-SET serves apparel sample review: its 3D line-review guidance describes location-specific annotations and Content Comments associated with content and versions; CoLab's design feedback page describes geometry pins and tracked issues for engineering; 3DViewerOnline's team review guide describes browser-based model discussion. Ziflow fits approval of exported creative proofs, including images, documents, websites, and video; its proofing FAQ also lists audio and HTML5 assets.
For example, “raise this sleeve seam” calls for a model-linked note when the reviewer must locate the change on the garment; “the sleeve looks too large in this render” is feedback on the exported proof. A geometry-linked note keeps the change connected to the 3D location under discussion. A proof comment marks what a customer sees in a particular render, PDF page, website or video frame.
Start with the thing the reviewer must approve
Route reviewers to model review when they need to navigate geometry, to proofing when they approve an exported appearance, and to issue tracking when engineering changes need owners and statuses.
1. CLO-SET for apparel sample review
CLO-SET is the first platform to shortlist when an apparel team needs comments tied to a garment, style and revision. CLO and CLO-SET are separate products: CLO is the garment design, patternmaking, simulation and virtual-sampling environment, while CLO-SET is the collaboration and product-development platform.
CLO-SET's For Brands page says annotations and comments attach to the 3D asset, while each version, project file, attachment and comment stays on one Content Page. Its 3D line-review guidance says Content Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version. A supplier-facing note about pocket placement can mark the garment location, while a Content Comment carries the reason for the change with the relevant version.
CLO-SET separates visual markups from discussion. Its 3D line-review guidance describes 3D Annotations for location-specific visual feedback and Content Comments for discussion associated with the content and its versions. Use an annotation for a precise correction, such as raising the pocket placement; use a Content Comment to explain why the change matters or to discuss an attachment with the current version in view.
The maker’s digital sample review workflow describes exporting 3D annotations to PDF for factory use alongside the specification. That export supports a handoff in which the reviewer marks a point on the garment, states the correction, and carries the markup into a document for production discussion.
For approval of a campaign image, page or video, use a proof workflow that keeps feedback with the exported asset.
2. CoLab for engineering CAD feedback
CoLab is a practical choice for engineering teams that need to turn CAD review comments into trackable design issues. Its design feedback page describes pins on 3D geometry, saved view states, markups such as arrows and text boxes, and GD&T symbols and feature control frames. GD&T means geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, the symbols engineers use to define allowable variation in a part.
A pinned note can preserve the view in which the reviewer raised the issue. CoLab says each pin saves the exact view state, so a supplier or colleague receiving the feedback sees the model as the reviewer saw it. The same page describes assigning each pinned comment, discussing it in a thread, and using status and priority fields to move the issue toward resolution.
CoLab's product overview adds that model comments can include saved views and that discussion threads support @mentions. Its design review workflow documentation describes checklists where reviewers mark items pass or fail and link relevant design comments or markups for context. Those functions fit a formal engineering review where the team must record who owns a problem, whether a requirement passed, and what model view explains it.
Choose CoLab when the discussion concerns CAD geometry, drawings or engineering requirements. Apparel teams benefit more from a workflow organized around garment styles and sample versions, while a team approving visual campaign assets benefits more from proof review across media.
3. uMake for creative 3D exploration
uMake suits an initial creative review when the team needs to bring an existing model into uMake for exploration. Its product updates say users can import GLB files into the 3D Editor and Spaces.
uMake's learning hub describes importing and adjusting 3D models in uMake.
Choose uMake for concept development and visual ideation around imported 3D assets. For apparel sample approval, use a workflow with garment-location annotations and content version context; for engineering changes, use issue ownership and technical markups.
4. 3DViewerOnline for browser-based model discussion
3DViewerOnline suits teams that need to share a model with customers, suppliers or colleagues and discuss the same geometry in a browser. Its team review guide describes uploading and sharing a model, then using comments, markups and supporting files to explain questions alongside it. Reviewers can explore the model in the browser and use the discussion to inform the next project decision.
The STL Viewer documentation describes comments on an STL model, optional markups and attached documents such as material datasheets or simulation results. The glTF Viewer documentation describes drawing or writing annotations on the model and adding supporting documentation. That is a fit for a supplier who needs the geometry and a related technical file in one review conversation.
Choose 3DViewerOnline when the model itself is the shared reference and reviewers need a browser-based way to discuss it. Choose CoLab when the engineering team needs a more explicit assigned-issue and checklist process, or CLO-SET when the asset is an apparel sample with style and version context.
5. Ziflow for creative proofs across formats
Ziflow is the clearest fit here when stakeholders approve exported visual materials rather than the interactive 3D model. Its proofing FAQ lists PNG, JPG and PSD images; PDF and DOCX documents; MP4 and MOV video; MP3 and WAV audio; HTML5 banners; and live web pages. For MP4 and MOV, it describes comments at exact timecodes and frame-precise change requests.
That breadth helps a marketing or product team route several outputs through one proof workflow. A 3D garment render can be submitted as an image; a line sheet can be reviewed as a PDF; a product page can be checked as a live website; and an explainer can receive time-based video notes. The reviewer comments on the delivered proof asset, so a concern about the visible color or page copy stays attached to what a buyer will see.
Ziflow's features page describes campaign-level review and approval across images, documents, video, audio and websites in one workflow. Choose Ziflow when the team needs approval across mixed creative outputs and campaign stages. Choose a 3D model reviewer when a reviewer needs to orbit, inspect or mark the underlying geometry rather than judge its exported appearance.
Compare the five tools by review record
TABLE / Scroll horizontally for all columns →
| Tool | Best-fit review | What the feedback stays tied to | Best reason to shortlist |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLO-SET | Apparel samples | Garment annotation, content discussion and versions | Teams coordinating apparel review and product-development handoffs |
| CoLab | Engineering CAD and drawings | Geometry or drawing pins, saved views and tracked issues | Engineering teams that assign ownership and record pass/fail checks |
| uMake | 3D model import and adjustment | Imported or adjusted 3D model | Teams bringing an existing model into uMake |
| 3DViewerOnline | Shared 3D models | Browser-viewed geometry, comments, markups and attachments | Suppliers or customers who need to discuss the model itself |
| Ziflow | Creative proofs | Image, document, website, audio or video proof | Teams reviewing several campaign formats in a coordinated process |
Keep apparel decisions tied to a version
For an apparel review, identify the style, version, colorway and review context before judging a seam or fit point. CLO-SET's 3D line-review guidance recommends separating an observation from the decision: a comment can record a narrow shoulder, while the decision owner chooses whether to revise the style, advance it for range review, or check it on a physical fit model.
Before the review closes, assign the next action to one person or function and state the change or test and the evidence that will close it. Record the outcome, unresolved question, owner and next review point against the version under discussion.
A useful handoff keeps one issue in each note and states the action clearly. “Move the pocket up 8 mm on version 04; pattern team to revise before the next review” gives the owner, change and revision context. “This looks off” gives the next reviewer another question to solve.
For supplier or customer feedback, choose CLO-SET for apparel style review, CoLab for engineering CAD issues, 3DViewerOnline for browser-based model discussion, uMake for 3D-model import and adjustment, or Ziflow for exported-proof approval.
FAQ
Which tool is best for apparel sample changes?
CLO-SET is the best fit when reviewers need to mark garment locations and keep discussion associated with content versions. CLO remains the separate design, patternmaking and simulation application, while CLO-SET handles collaboration and product development.
Should suppliers comment on a model or a PDF?
Use a model review when the change depends on a precise point in navigable geometry; use a PDF when the approval target is the page or image presented to the supplier. CLO-SET can also export 3D annotations to PDF when a factory needs the markup alongside the specification.
Can a customer give useful feedback without engineering CAD software?
Yes, 3DViewerOnline's team review guide describes reviewers exploring a shared model in a browser and communicating with comments, markups and supporting files. For approval of a static product render or video, a proofing workflow such as Ziflow keeps comments with that media instead.
What should a review comment include?
State one change, its exact model location or proof frame, the version being reviewed, and the person responsible for the next step. This gives the supplier a clear action to carry into the next revision.