3. Learning Curve<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Fusion 360<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhile Solidworks has more customizability and capabilities than Fusion 360, Fusion 360 is much simpler; therefore, the learning curve is not as steep. With proper training, however, you can master the power of Solidworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Capabilities<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nGenerally speaking, Solidworks and Fusion 360 have pretty much the same capacities and capabilities. However, Solidworks is more advanced at each one of them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both applications can access a parts library for standard parts such as screws, bolts, etc., both can simulate stresses. But Solidworks can do far more complex simulations. Both can apply material qualities to the forms you model, but Solidworks is more customizable. Both can render your models and materials to show what the actual product might look like, but Solidworks is more powerful. On principle, Solidworks is just beefier all around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Parts Library<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nI was looking into this topic, and there tends to be a consensus among people that Fusion 360’s library of parts is inferior to that of Solidworks (or even Inventor). So much so, that people were saying they felt this was Fusion 360’s “only real problem,” in their opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When modeling something that is going to be manufactured, it is critical for your invention to be compatible with a lot of standard bolts, screws, parts, electronics, holes, etc. A ready selection of these parts is considered by many to be a necessary component of their CAD\/CAM application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The literature I was reading on this topic was a couple of years old, so maybe Autodesk has put some effort into improving this. As such, I recommend you consider the importance of a parts library for your personal needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. Materials<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFrom what I can tell, Solidworks is still the winner of this category due to the broader range of materials that you can apply to your modeled parts. You can fully customize a material with all its physical attributes. You also have a library of standard materials at your disposal to run your simulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fusion 360 can do the same operations and has a decent amount of customizability. You can do stress tests and weight reduction simulations on both Solidworks and Fusion 360.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. Rendering<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nYou should be noticing a pattern here, by now. Again, I am saying Solidworks is the winner for yet another category simply because it’s more verstile and capable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As with previous categories, Fusion 360 can keep up pretty well and produce photorealistic renderings with lots of options. Still, Solidworks offers more advanced capabilities for these renderings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I watched a few examples of experienced pros utilizing both Fusion 360 and Solidworks, and, honestly, Fusion 360 holds its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Top; Fusion 360 photorealistic rendering. Bottom; Solidworks photorealistic rendering)<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\n8. Simulation<\/strong>s<\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nSticking to the same pattern here, Fusion 360 and Solidworks are both capable of running simulations. So it’s here where I must talk about the “cloud coins.” Some of Fusion 360’s capabilities are available only via cloud credits. Most of Fusion 360’s more advanced functions require cloud credits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That being said, scroll down below to check out the “CAD in the Cloud” section. I’ll run down a few details about the cloud credit services and their costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9. Electronics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWinner: Solidworks<\/span><\/strong> (This is a definitive win for Solidworks)<\/p>\n\n\n\nFor a real electronic invention to work, they need to be wired with electricity and circuit boards. Believe it or not, Solidworks can do that. What CAN’T Solidworks do? I guess the only better thing would be to reach into your monitor and pull out the invention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hopefully, that won’t happen anytime in the near future, because I wouldn’t be able to handle it. I would literally have a brain aneurysm. Fusion 360 can draw in wires, but as far as my research has found, Fusion 360 cannot simulate wiring, nor can it pull industry-standard wires and connectors from its library.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\nCAD in the Cloud<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe most significant difference between Solidworks and Fusion 360 is that Fusion is a cloud-based application. A lot of the rendering and simulating power can be performed on Autodesk’s servers versus utilizing your hardware.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This cloud rendering makes Fusion 360 great for people who don’t have a big beefy computer, but it does mean you have to rely upon your internet connection. The cloud has its advantages, but also its drawbacks. The biggest of these drawbacks is the additional cost of the cloud services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, let’s face it, the price for a Solidworks License is BIG compared to the subscription for Fusion 360, so you can buy a lot of Cloud Credits before you even match the cost of Solidworks, but it’s still a bummer to have to fork out the extra dough for something every time you want to use it. Here’s a shortlist of the prices of for different cloud services:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
USD 1 = 1 Autodesk Cloud Credit<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rendering = 1+ credits per render (depending on how complex the model you’re rendering)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Running Simulation = 5 credits ea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Structural Buckling Simulation = 15 credits ea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nonlinear Static Stress Simulation = 25 credits ea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Other advanced services are pay-as-you-go, so this is just a shortlist to give you an idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n