We value your input!
Please participate in Archicad 28 Home Screen and Tooltips/Quick Tutorials survey

Modeling
About Archicad's design tools, element connections, modeling concepts, etc.

Architects: Revit or Archicad?

Anonymous
Not applicable
HII
Just gauging the popularity and usage of both Revit and ArchiCad in the industry. The school I'm in teaches and forces us to ArchiCad it in some of our works, which is odd considering that a majority of studios in our country uses solely Revit.

Is there something that ArchiCad that Revit does not offer? And the other way around?
75 REPLIES 75
Mats_Knutsson
Advisor
I would also say AC is easier for beginners. I've trained about 90 ppl internally in AC and 70% of them had Revit background and are mostly relieved with the ease of learning Archicad.
AC 25 SWE Full

HP Zbook Fury 15,6 G8. 32 GB RAM. Nvidia RTX A3000.
jl_lt
Ace
runxel wrote:

Also, the office of a good friend of mine draws everything again in Autocad. I don't even know why they have the Revit model in the first place, because not a single plan leaves the office directly out of Revit. (It's one of the biggest offices in West Germany)
This, blows.my.mind
Martin Jules
Mentor
Revit is better than what you describe. It is not without any reason that it is widely used in North America. It is not either because Revit is from AutoDesk that lots of firms use it more than ArchiCAD in both Canada and United States.
qbic-ft wrote:
Revit 2021 is out and the only improvement is Slanted Walls you can adjust the angle of the wall and everything else is still terrible. Maybe in 10 years from now will be like ArchiCAD 22
Martin Luther Jules
AC 10-28 (Full)
Asus | 64 GB RAM | Windows 11
shrutiniwas
Contributor
I would say Revit is also good, but far more limited. I am not talking about handling structure and MEP disciplines, as Revit covers them better than Archicad. In a way Revit ticks a lot of boxes, almost all. But overall it can be deemed ‘objectively’ rigidly programmed, as more often than not it grabs the hands of designers to impose specific manners in which they must make decisions towards creating anything. This fact somewhat renders Revit as more simplified solution, useful for forcing standardization- thus rendering it somewhat better fit for larger firms aiming standardized practice (prevalent characteristics among North American firms, I am assuming as not fully informed).
I have been an avid user and advocate of Revit, before I gave Archicad a go, as I just wanted to be less biased being an academician. Initial transition took a lot of effort, as some things are pretty simple and dynamic in Revit, e.g., moving walls in a floor plan. But, then when I kept on going, and completed the same project on Archicad which I had done with Revit in a very detailed manner (in Revit, I had also modeled 3D rebars, baseplates etc. for some part of the farmhouse project). I could summarize the whole experience, as liberating. I could visualize where I had to contain myself in order to be reasonably BIM efficient in Revit. Archicad, on the other hand provided better modeling flexibility and more accurate reporting avenues. To list a few of them:
1. Material Priority (in Archicad) over join geometry (in Revit)
2. Property manager (in Archicad) over utilization of shared parameters (in Revit)
3. Autotext and other labels (in Archicad) over tags and keynotes (in Revit). However, material keynote is rather missing from Archicad. I mean there could be workarounds, but selection of material within complex profiles and composite individually through autotext or other labels is still a big challenge (apart from the skin list tag which is not completely what we want, and not even useful for complex profiles properly).
4. Editing elements in 3D is much better in Archicad, while in Revit, graphically editing is only possible for instance properties. However, as mentioned earlier, working in floor plans sometimes is better in Revit based on the temporary dimensions, aligning ability, locking alignments etc. Locking of surface, edge, and location alignments should also be developed into Archicad.
5. Complex profile feature is a really essential thing to be in Architectural and BIM modeling tools. Only instance, I could gather in Revit is stacked walls, which is non-intuitive and very tricky to use. Whereas complex profiles in Archicad are versatile and parametric (however, modifiers for angle parameters and curves should also be developed).
6. Graphic management is way better in Archicad (and more parametric), though some graphic overrides feature are more flexible in Revit (for e.g., manual temporary view specific overrides for manually selected elements, exploded views etc.)
7. Interactive scheduling of Archicad is more intuitive and reporting is more accurate due to material priority feature.
8. Solid Element Operations, and Boolean Operations are completely missing from Revit.

There could be many many more points (like highly parametrized library elements, better and detailed layouting capabilities, more capable 2D drafting and detailing) which make Archicad more suitable for Architects. Still, Archicad could learn a few tricks from Revit as well. But overall, in my opinion, Archicad is a far more suitable tool for architects. It is a very detailed tool, very very detailed- even intimidating (not complaining). Although, I am forced to use Revit as a Professor of construction management (which is unfortunate, as it is prevalent in India and has secured its place in curriculums as a result of smart marketing strategy from Autodesk), but for architectural work and explorations I would never go back to using it again while it retains its current form. But, I always keep revisiting my decision during the version launches, as I hate to be a zealot (but a little zeal never hurts).
Mjules wrote:
Revit is better than what you describe. It is not without any reason that it is widely used in North America. It is not either because Revit is from AutoDesk that lots of firms use it more than ArchiCAD in both Canada and United States.
PR59
Participant
1000000 times Archicad
Architecte DPLG (France) / Architect ARB (Uk)
ArchiCAD 6.5 to 22
iMac OS 10.15.1 / i5 4 cores/ 16 Go RAM
Tour PC Win 10 / i7-8700 6 cores / 64 Go RAM
Artlantis 2020 / Twinmotion 20.2
Arty
Participant
shrutiniwas wrote:
I would say Revit is also good, but far more limited. I am not talking about handling structure and MEP disciplines, as Revit covers them better than Archicad. In a way Revit ticks a lot of boxes, almost all. But overall it can be deemed ‘objectively’ rigidly programmed, as more often than not it grabs the hands of designers to impose specific manners in which they must make decisions towards creating anything. This fact somewhat renders Revit as more simplified solution, useful for forcing standardization- thus rendering it somewhat better fit for larger firms aiming standardized practice (prevalent characteristics among North American firms, I am assuming as not fully informed).
I have been an avid user and advocate of Revit, before I gave Archicad a go, as I just wanted to be less biased being an academician. Initial transition took a lot of effort, as some things are pretty simple and dynamic in Revit, e.g., moving walls in a floor plan. But, then when I kept on going, and completed the same project on Archicad which I had done with Revit in a very detailed manner (in Revit, I had also modeled 3D rebars, baseplates etc. for some part of the farmhouse project). I could summarize the whole experience, as liberating. I could visualize where I had to contain myself in order to be reasonably BIM efficient in Revit. Archicad, on the other hand provided better modeling flexibility and more accurate reporting avenues. To list a few of them:
1. Material Priority (in Archicad) over join geometry (in Revit)
2. Property manager (in Archicad) over utilization of shared parameters (in Revit)
3. Autotext and other labels (in Archicad) over tags and keynotes (in Revit). However, material keynote is rather missing from Archicad. I mean there could be workarounds, but selection of material within complex profiles and composite individually through autotext or other labels is still a big challenge (apart from the skin list tag which is not completely what we want, and not even useful for complex profiles properly).
4. Editing elements in 3D is much better in Archicad, while in Revit, graphically editing is only possible for instance properties. However, as mentioned earlier, working in floor plans sometimes is better in Revit based on the temporary dimensions, aligning ability, locking alignments etc. Locking of surface, edge, and location alignments should also be developed into Archicad.
5. Complex profile feature is a really essential thing to be in Architectural and BIM modeling tools. Only instance, I could gather in Revit is stacked walls, which is non-intuitive and very tricky to use. Whereas complex profiles in Archicad are versatile and parametric (however, modifiers for angle parameters and curves should also be developed).
6. Graphic management is way better in Archicad (and more parametric), though some graphic overrides feature are more flexible in Revit (for e.g., manual temporary view specific overrides for manually selected elements, exploded views etc.)
7. Interactive scheduling of Archicad is more intuitive and reporting is more accurate due to material priority feature.
8. Solid Element Operations, and Boolean Operations are completely missing from Revit.

There could be many many more points (like highly parametrized library elements, better and detailed layouting capabilities, more capable 2D drafting and detailing) which make Archicad more suitable for Architects. Still, Archicad could learn a few tricks from Revit as well. But overall, in my opinion, Archicad is a far more suitable tool for architects. It is a very detailed tool, very very detailed- even intimidating (not complaining). Although, I am forced to use Revit as a Professor of construction management (which is unfortunate, as it is prevalent in India and has secured its place in curriculums as a result of smart marketing strategy from Autodesk), but for architectural work and explorations I would never go back to using it again while it retains its current form. But, I always keep revisiting my decision during the version launches, as I hate to be a zealot (but a little zeal never hurts).
Mjules wrote:
Revit is better than what you describe. It is not without any reason that it is widely used in North America. It is not either because Revit is from AutoDesk that lots of firms use it more than ArchiCAD in both Canada and United States.
Never read a better summary in regards to Revit vs ArchiCAD.
Well done sir.
I'm in the same situation as you : teaching Revit / using ArchiCAD for my own projects.
Your description was excellent. (I'm dying for angle and curve modifiers...which AC25 didn't bring, sadly)
AMD Threadripper 2950X, 32 GB DDR4 RAM
Radeon VII 16GB, 1TB NVMe SSD
WIN10 PRO ENG
AC13-AC25