KoAssist vs. CADENAS.

A part is not a document.

CADENAS works on objects with a defined shape. A part has dimensions, a material and tolerances, and it can be compared with other parts because geometry is comparable. From that come functions that exist nowhere else: search from a 2D sketch, partial geometry matching, inverse search. The price is that the data has to be classified.

KoAssist works on texts and sheets. A standard cannot be compared geometrically; it can be read and cited. The work consists of pulling the one paragraph out of three hundred pages and citing it so an assessor can follow it. The prerequisite is not classification, only that the files can be found.

That our similar-part search is still in development belongs in plain sight here. It aims at finding similar parts through the drawing, that is through the sheet rather than the model. Even finished it will be no substitute for strategic parts management, because it lacks the approval workflows and the manufacturer catalogs from which CADENAS draws much of its value.

One point that often gets lost in a selection is the rollout effort. Parts management lives on a maintained, classified master, and preparing that is the actual project, not the software. A document assistant copes with archives as they are today, including folder structures that have grown over decades. That does not make CADENAS worse, but it shifts the point at which the benefit starts.

When is CADENAS the better choice?

When part variety is what costs the money. Duplicates in the master, the same screw under four numbers, purchased parts without standardisation: that is what PARTsolutions is built for, and its geometric search has been mature for years. KoAssist can do none of that today.

When purchased parts should come from manufacturer catalogs. eCATALOGsolutions delivers the 3D catalogs of component manufacturers straight into CAD. That is a benefit of its own and has nothing to do with document search.

When a standardisation process with approvals is to be built. Anyone who wants to prevent a new part being created when it already exists needs exactly those workflows. An assistant that answers questions enforces nothing.

When is KoAssist the better choice?

When the question hangs on a document rather than a part. Which standard applies, what the specification demands, where the approval sits, what the assessor objected to last time: parts management does not cover this half of engineering research.

When you want to start without tidying up first. PARTsolutions lives on a maintained, classified parts master, and preparing it is the actual project. We build on the archives as they are today, including folder structures that have grown over decades.

When the drawing itself should be checked. Comparing it against your own design guidelines, with the rule and the place on the sheet, is a module of its own here and is not advertised by CADENAS.

The same question, asked twice

An engineer needs a bearing block. First question: does something like it already exist in the company? Second question: what does the customer specification require for it, and what did the assessor object to on the last project?

CADENAS answers the first question better, and clearly so. GEOsearch finds similar geometries in the parts master, shows variants and makes visible that the block has existed in two versions all along. Our similar-part search is in development and is not called on for this today.

CADENAS does not answer the second question at all, because it does not hang on the part but on documents: on the specification, the inspection report, the email with the clarification. KoAssist brings the three together and names file and page.

That is the honest picture for most companies: the two tools do not stand against each other, they answer different halves of the same engineering task. Anyone who can only buy one should decide which half costs more time today.