Leo AI alternative for EU teams: KoAssist and Leo AI compared.

Thought from the model, or from the document.

Leo AI starts at the geometry. The company describes its model as trained on native CAD geometry, and everything else follows: connections to the PLM systems where that geometry is managed, and the ability to produce starting models. Thinking that way, a part is a body first and paper second.

KoAssist starts at the document. A standard is a text with section numbers, a specification a list of requirements, a drawing a sheet with a title block and dimensions. The task is to find the passage and make it citable, not to build a new model. That is why we produce a page number and not geometry.

The second difference is the legal frame, and it is more concrete than it sounds. Leo stores only encrypted vectors and leaves the original files where they are. Architecturally that is leaner than our synchronised copy. In exchange Leo publishes no list of countries, while we put German data centres, language processing in European data centres and the data processing agreement in writing. Which of the two commitments weighs more is your IT department's call, not ours.

When is Leo AI the better choice?

When the archive lives in Windchill or Teamcenter. Both are connected there and neither is here. For a company whose knowledge lives entirely in its PLM, that points to Leo.

When the AI should design and not only answer. According to its product page, Leo generates CAD starting models for four common systems. That is not what KoAssist is built for.

When no second copy of the documents may exist. Leo stores only encrypted vectors. Where IT makes exactly that a requirement, Leo's approach fits better. Our copy, in turn, stays in Germany.

When is KoAssist the better choice?

When the documents are in German. Product, support and documentation are German, and the standards world is the local one: DIN, ISO, VDI, AD 2000. That is not a comfort issue but a question of accuracy when a question is asked in German engineering vocabulary.

When the knowledge does not sit in a PLM. Network drives, SharePoint, Outlook and the project archive that has grown over decades are connected here; Leo lists Windchill, Teamcenter, Onshape and SOLIDWORKS PDM on its product page, and local directories on its security page. SharePoint and Outlook are not mentioned.

When IT needs a written commitment. Hosting in Germany, language processing in European data centres, a data processing agreement under Article 28 that discloses all subprocessors, with technical and organisational measures attached. Leo commits to SOC 2 and GDPR principles but publishes no list of countries.

When the drawing itself needs checking. Comparing it against your own design guidelines, with the rule and the location on the sheet, is a dedicated module with us. Leo advertises fewer design errors but does not describe checking against your own guidelines.

A company without PLM and thirty years of project folders

A plant builder works with SOLIDWORKS and its PDM, no Windchill, no Teamcenter. Project documentation has been sitting on a network drive for thirty years, sorted by customer name and year. The standards library sits next to it as PDFs, the discussions about it in Outlook.

Leo AI is only partly at home here. SOLIDWORKS PDM is connected, and so are local directories according to its security page. Outlook is not on the product page, so the customer correspondence stays outside.

KoAssist reads the network drive and Outlook. The question about the 2014 design case leads to the project file, the email with the customer approval and the standard the calculation was based on. What Leo does better in exchange: if the same plant builder needs a new bracket and wants a starting model produced, our remit ends.

To be fair: if this company introduces Teamcenter in two years, the calculation shifts. The knowledge then sits where Leo is at home.