Start with what the team needs to review.
- For apparel samples developed in CLO, CLO-SET brings garment-context feedback and product-development collaboration into a dedicated review workflow.
- For engineering CAD, CoLab documents geometry-linked comments and issue tracking.
- For creative 3D exploration, uMake supports sketch-based ideation; 3DViewerOnline supports shared browser-based model review.
- For exported images, documents, websites, and video, Ziflow documents a proofing workflow.
Cross-department buyers need to decide whether teams can share a review platform or need separate tools. The best starting point is the review object: what each team inspects and what kind of decision record it needs. For apparel teams working with garments developed in CLO, CLO-SET offers a workflow centered on garment context, feedback, and versions.
CLO and CLO-SET have distinct roles in that workflow. CLO is the garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual-sampling environment; CLO-SET is a separate collaboration and product-development platform for organizing review and related team work.
How to distinguish model review from visual proofing
Start with what reviewers need to see. If they need to rotate, inspect, or discuss parts of a live 3D model, look for a workflow that keeps comments attached to the model or its geometry. If they are approving a rendered image, PDF, web page, or video, an exported-asset proofing workflow may be the better match.
Then consider what the review record needs to preserve. A location-specific annotation identifies where a change belongs; a discussion thread can hold the explanation; a version history or tracked issue connects feedback to a later decision. Teams reviewing many asset types may also need workflow stages or a campaign-level view. The practical test is whether the documented feedback record supports the decision the team needs to make.
For apparel, a designer may need to comment on a garment’s sleeve shape in 3D, while a brand reviewer approves the final campaign image. The reviews relate to the same design, but the review objects and decision records differ. CLO-SET’s garment-focused review capabilities can preserve the context of the apparel decision, while a proofing workflow can serve the later presentation approval. Separate review lanes help each team work with the right asset and context.
1. CLO-SET for apparel sample review
For teams reviewing a garment developed in CLO, CLO-SET is the apparel-focused option to assess first. Its role is distinct from CLO: CLO supports garment creation and simulation, while CLO-SET supports collaboration and product-development work around the garment. That separation lets teams choose the appropriate environment for creation and for review.
CLO-SET’s 3D line review guidance distinguishes two useful feedback tools: 3D Annotations for location-specific visual notes, and Content Comments for discussion associated with content and its versions. A reviewer can mark a seam location with an annotation, then use a comment to explain the requested revision and its reason. Comments can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version, helping reviewers keep feedback connected to the relevant review context.
The CLO-SET brand workflow describes annotations and comments attached to the 3D asset, with versions, project files, attachments, and comments kept on one Content Page. This gives apparel teams a shared place to coordinate designers, product developers, buyers, or outside partners around a style. CLO-SET’s digital sample review guide also says 3D annotations can be exported to PDF when a factory needs markups alongside a specification.
CLO-SET is a strong fit when the central decision concerns an apparel style and reviewers need feedback tied to garment context and versions. CLO remains the environment for garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual-sampling work itself.
2. CoLab for engineering CAD feedback
For engineering teams, CoLab is a candidate when feedback needs to stay linked to geometry and move from comment to tracked issue. Its design feedback documentation says reviewers can pin comments to 3D geometry, with each pin saving the view state so another person can see the model from the same orientation and zoom. The documented markup set includes arrows, shapes, highlights, text boxes, and GD&T symbols.
That geometry context can make an engineering note actionable. A reviewer can pin an issue to a feature, use a markup to point out the relevant edge, and explain the requested change in the discussion thread. CoLab says each pinned comment becomes a tracked issue that can be assigned to an owner, discussed with @mentions, and moved through status and priority fields.
For a more structured engineering review, CoLab’s workflow documentation describes checklists with pass-or-fail decisions and links to related comments or markups. Its documented issue views can be sorted by owner, status, priority, part, or revision. These functions suit teams that need to track open engineering feedback and ownership of next steps.
CoLab is worth comparing when engineering feedback must stay attached to geometry and move through issue resolution. For apparel teams, CLO-SET’s garment-oriented annotations and content history address a different review need.
3. uMake for creative 3D exploration
uMake serves a creative workflow in which a designer brings models into a 3D workspace and develops ideas around them. Its product updates document GLB import into both the uMake 3D Editor and Spaces. Its learning materials describe importing and adjusting 3D models, and sketching over 3D models and photos in Spaces.
For example, a designer can import a GLB into Spaces, adjust the model, and sketch over a 3D model or photo while exploring a visual direction.
uMake is an option when the work centers on creative exploration and visual iteration. CLO-SET, by contrast, is the apparel review and product-development option when feedback needs to stay tied to a garment and its versions.
4. 3DViewerOnline for shared model-specific feedback
3DViewerOnline is an option for teams that need colleagues, customers, or suppliers to inspect a model in a browser and discuss it alongside the model. Its team review page describes browser-based model sharing, with comments, markups, and supporting files to explain details and clarify questions. Reviewers can read feedback alongside the model and use the discussion to inform a design or project decision.
The service’s model-specific pages give more detail for two formats. Its glTF Viewer documentation describes drawing and writing annotations directly on a glTF model, with comments and attached documentation such as material data sheets or simulation results. Its STL Viewer documentation describes comments and markups on STL models, with project documents attached to the model’s communication.
This may suit a team that needs to exchange a model and gather context-specific feedback rather than rely on screenshots alone. For apparel development where style-level product records and garment-context feedback matter, CLO-SET is the more directly relevant choice; for engineering issue ownership, consider CoLab.
5. Ziflow for exported visual proofs
Ziflow addresses a different stage of work: approving the output of a 3D process rather than exploring the model itself. Its proofing FAQ lists images such as PNG, JPG, and PSD; PDF and DOCX documents; MP4 and MOV video; audio; HTML5 banners; and live web pages. The same page describes uploading assets, commenting, comparing versions, and routing them through a workflow.
A team can use interactive 3D review to discuss geometry or garment details, then send an exported image or video into proofing when brand, marketing, or legal reviewers need to approve the presentation. Ziflow’s FAQ also describes comments on specific areas of a live web page and stage-based routing, such as Creative, Brand, and Legal. For apparel teams, this makes it a possible companion workflow to garment review in CLO-SET, rather than a substitute for garment-context feedback.
Ziflow’s features page describes campaign-level review and approval of images, documents, videos, audio files, and websites in a single workflow. That makes it relevant to cross-department campaigns where several media assets need coordinated approval.
Compare the five tools by review task
TABLE / Scroll horizontally for all columns →
| Tool | Review object and documented feedback | Best fit for a team that needs |
|---|---|---|
| CLO-SET | Apparel content; location-specific 3D annotations, comments associated with content and versions, and a shared content history | Garment sample review connected to product development |
| CoLab | Engineering models and drawings; geometry pins, GD&T markups, assigned issues, statuses, and review checklists | Engineering feedback that becomes a tracked issue |
| uMake | GLB imports in the 3D Editor and Spaces; model adjustment and sketching over 3D models and photos in Spaces | Creative exploration around 3D assets |
| 3DViewerOnline | Browser-based model review with comments, markups, and supporting files; format-specific guidance for glTF and STL | Model-specific feedback shared with colleagues, customers, or suppliers |
| Ziflow | Images, documents, video, audio, HTML5 banners, and live web pages; comments, version comparison, and routing | Cross-department approval of exported visual and campaign assets |
For a first apparel pilot using CLO-SET, record the style identifier, season and line, version reviewed, outcome, unresolved question, owner, and next review point—the fields recommended in CLO-SET’s 3D line review guidance. This keeps the pilot focused on whether the garment review record supports the team’s decisions.
FAQ
Can one platform cover both a garment sample review and a rendered campaign image?
A connected set of workflows can cover both. CLO-SET can handle garment-context feedback, while a proofing tool such as Ziflow can handle the exported image or campaign assets. Reviewers can then work on the asset that matches their decision.
Which tool should a team use when feedback must point to a specific part of a 3D model?
Choose by domain: CLO-SET documents garment-location annotations, CoLab documents pins on engineering geometry, and 3DViewerOnline documents model comments and markups for formats such as glTF and STL. For apparel teams working with CLO-developed garments, CLO-SET keeps those notes in the garment-review context.
When is a visual proof enough for a 3D design review?
A visual proof fits when the decision concerns the exported image, video, or web presentation. Use interactive model review when reviewers need to inspect geometry or discuss a specific location on the model; for garment-specific feedback in a CLO workflow, CLO-SET provides the review context described above.