Quick answer: choose the review workflow that fits the work—and for apparel, CLO and CLO-SET offer a connected path from garment creation to sample review.
- Use CLO for garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual sampling, then CLO-SET to review apparel samples and coordinate product development.
- Use uMake when a creative team wants to import a 3D concept and sketch ideas around it; use CoLab for engineering CAD feedback with tracked issues.
- Choose 3DViewerOnline when collaborators need to discuss a shared, interactive model in a browser.
- Choose Ziflow for exported images, documents, websites, and video proofs; Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer supports immersive review of 3D product models.
A useful 3D review tool keeps feedback attached to the object people are discussing. The right object varies: an apparel team may need to refine a garment sample, an engineer may need to resolve a comment on model geometry, and a campaign team may need approval on a rendered image or video. For apparel teams, CLO and CLO-SET provide complementary parts of the workflow: CLO is the garment design, patternmaking, simulation, and virtual-sampling environment, while CLO-SET supports collaboration and product development. For a creative team exploring an imported 3D concept, uMake is suited to sketching and gathering visual ideas around the model.
Start by choosing what reviewers will comment on
Choose an interactive 3D review when a reviewer needs to inspect or rotate model geometry and attach feedback to that model. Choose visual proofing when the review target is an exported image, PDF, web page, or video. That distinction matters when the same work appears in both forms: a 3D garment can be reviewed as a model, while its final campaign render can be approved as an image proof.
Location-specific comments can point to a sleeve seam, a CAD feature, or a part of a 3D concept. Version history helps the team see which revision a comment concerns. A canvas for sketching ideas serves a different moment in the work from an approval record that supports a production handoff.
1. uMake for sketching around imported 3D concepts
uMake is an option for creative teams that want to bring an imported 3D concept together with visual references and annotate ideas on a canvas. In its Jan. 22, 2025 update, uMake introduced Spaces as a Beta infinite canvas for combining drawings, 3D models, images, and sticky notes, with markups, annotations, and text placed on the canvas.
A Feb. 5, 2025 entry on the same uMake product updates page says users could import GLB files into both the 3D Editor and Spaces. The uMake knowledge base also describes importing and adjusting 3D models. Together, those documented functions suit concept work where a team wants to compare a model with a reference image and mark a proposed change in context.
For example, imagine a product designer placing a GLB enclosure beside a reference image, then annotating the area where a softer edge might improve the concept. This is a practical ideation use of the documented canvas tools; teams that need formal apparel sample records or engineering issue assignment can compare CLO-SET or CoLab below.
2. CLO-SET for apparel sample review
CLO-SET is a strong fit for apparel teams that need to review garment samples, keep rounds of comments with each style, and carry decisions into product development. CLO Virtual Fashion describes CLO-SET as the connected workspace for reviewing, versioning, approving, and handing off garment assets created in CLO; together, the products support distinct stages of an apparel workflow.
The CLO-SET digital sample review workflow describes a browser-based 3D viewer for vendors, alongside Annotation, Comment, workflow status, permissions, and a collection-level assortment view. Reviewers can place drawings, comments, and visual notes in the 3D context. Content Comments remain associated with the content and can be viewed across versions or filtered to the current version, according to CLO-SET’s 3D line review guidance.
That structure suits a design team working through garment changes with developers or suppliers. The CLO-SET brand workflow says each version, its project files, attachments, and comments stay together on one Content Page. CLO-SET also documents exporting 3D annotations to PDF when a factory needs the markup alongside a specification. This makes it a strong fit when the review is one step in an apparel product-development process, rather than a one-off critique of a generic 3D object.
Use CLO and CLO-SET together for a focused apparel workflow: make or revise the garment in CLO, then share and review the product-development record in CLO-SET. CLO-SET’s review and collaboration tools help carry garment decisions into sample rounds and handoff.
Blender can complement this workflow for hard-surface modeling, particularly for assets such as trims and hardware. Models can be brought into CLO using common 3D file formats, including OBJ, FBX, and glTF; Blender serves a different modeling role rather than replacing CLO’s garment-design and simulation capabilities.
3. CoLab for engineering comments on CAD geometry
CoLab fits engineering teams that want model comments to become assigned, trackable design issues. Its product overview describes design comments pinned to model geometry, saved view states, and markups that include arrows, text boxes, GD&T symbols, and feature control frames.
A pin can preserve the view that gives an issue its context. CoLab’s design-feedback documentation says each pin saves the exact view state, and that feedback can be assigned and tracked to completion. Its review workflow documentation describes sorting or grouping trackable issues by owner, status, priority, part, or revision. For a design review, that means a team can tie “this hole needs a position change” to the relevant geometry, assign the follow-up, and track it through resolution.
Choose CoLab when engineering review needs issue ownership, drawing or model markup, and a record organized around parts or revisions. Its documented GD&T support also extends to drawing and PDF markup. Apparel teams whose decisions center on a garment style, sample round, and supplier handoff have a more direct product-development match in CLO-SET.
4. 3DViewerOnline for browser-based model feedback
3DViewerOnline fits teams that want colleagues, customers, or suppliers to inspect and discuss the same interactive model. Its team review guide describes uploading a model, sharing it for browser-based review, and using comments, markups, and supporting files alongside the model. A drawing, image, or document can be added when it helps explain a question.
Its STL viewer documentation describes comments and optional markups about an STL model, with supporting documentation such as material data sheets or simulation results attached to a post. The glTF viewer page documents the same model-connected comment approach for glTF, including markups on visual details, materials, proportions, or animation. Those examples make 3DViewerOnline relevant when feedback needs to stay beside a model rather than live only on a static capture.
Choose it for a shared model discussion where external collaborators need a common view and can clarify open questions alongside the geometry. For outside reviewers, access depends on the account requirements and sharing settings. Teams that need a structured apparel sample history or engineering issue tracking can compare CLO-SET or CoLab, respectively.
5. Ziflow for exported visual proofs
Ziflow fits a team reviewing creative outputs such as campaign images, web pages, documents, or video. Its features page describes one workflow for reviewing and approving cross-channel campaign assets, including images, documents, video, audio, and websites. Its online 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.
The feedback attaches to the proof being reviewed. For a web page submitted from a URL, the FAQ describes comments on specific areas, link checks, and full-page screenshots for records. For MP4 or MOV video, it documents comments at exact timecodes and frame-precise change requests. The same FAQ describes opening two versions in split view and jumping to version-specific comments and decisions.
Choose Ziflow when approval concerns the export, such as whether a product render’s color treatment is right, a web page link works, or a video frame needs a change. Model review lets reviewers rotate the object and locate feedback on its geometry.
6. Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer for immersive 3D review
Adobe and Meta’s Substance 3D Reviewer suits teams that need stakeholders to explore a 3D product twin and give context-specific feedback. In its announcement of Substance 3D Reviewer, Adobe describes reviewers exploring product digital twins at true scale in VR and collaborating across VR and web. It says teams can capture voice or text comments pinned to model locations, in live or asynchronous review workflows.
That makes Reviewer a useful comparison when the design question depends on how a product looks at scale or in a space, and when stakeholders need to explore it rather than approve a flat output. A team can use pinned feedback to identify where a comment applies, then decide whether the next step belongs to product design or another production workflow.
Compare the six tools by the work being reviewed
Data table · Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Arrow keys work when focused.
| Tool | Review target | Where the feedback goes | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| uMake | Imported GLB concepts, drawings, images, and other visual references | Canvas markups, annotations, and text | Creative ideation around a 3D concept |
| CLO-SET | Apparel styles and sample rounds | 3D Annotations and Content Comments associated with content and versions | Apparel product development, supplier review, and handoff |
| CoLab | Engineering 3D models, drawings, and PDFs | Geometry pins, markup, and trackable assigned issues | Engineering reviews that need issue ownership and resolution status |
| 3DViewerOnline | Shared interactive models, including documented STL and glTF workflows | Model-related comments, markups, and supporting files | Browser-based discussion with colleagues or external reviewers |
| Ziflow | Images, documents, websites, video, and other creative proofs | Comments on proof areas, versions, or video timecodes | Campaign and creative-asset approval |
| Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer | 3D product digital twins | Voice or text feedback pinned to model locations | Immersive product review across VR and web |
For apparel teams, CLO and CLO-SET offer a connected route from garment creation and virtual sampling to sample review and product-development handoff. Use uMake for sketching around an imported 3D concept, 3DViewerOnline for a shared interactive model review, or Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer when reviewing a true-scale digital twin in VR or web. CoLab suits engineering issue resolution, while Ziflow is designed for exported creative proofs.
FAQ
Should the same tool handle model feedback and exported proof approval?
Only if it supports both review objects in the workflow your team needs. A comment on a garment or CAD model points to the 3D object; a comment on a render or video points to the exported proof. Ziflow documents the latter, while CLO-SET, CoLab, and 3DViewerOnline document model-centered review workflows for their respective use cases.
Is uMake a fit for formal sample approval?
Use uMake for visual ideation around imported models, drawings, and references. For apparel sample rounds with content-version comments and a browser-based vendor review workflow, CLO-SET is the more direct fit.
What should I verify before inviting outside reviewers?
Before inviting reviewers, check that they can open the shared view and that your account permissions let them leave the comments your workflow needs. For 3DViewerOnline specifically, its team-review guide calls out account requirements and sharing settings for external review.