Start with what reviewers need to see—and give apparel teams a place to discuss the garment itself.
- CLO-SET brings apparel content, comments and versions together in a product-development workflow.
- CoLab is worth considering when engineering feedback needs to point to CAD geometry and become a tracked issue.
- uMake and 3DViewerOnline can help when reviewers need to explore a creative 3D model.
- Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer supports model review in VR and on the web.
- Ziflow is an option when the item awaiting approval is an image, document, web page, audio file or video.
The best choice comes down to what reviewers need to do: explore an interactive 3D model or approve a visual export. For apparel teams, CLO-SET brings garment content, comments and versions into a shared collaboration space, alongside the design and simulation work done in CLO. The other tools serve different needs: CoLab is focused on engineering CAD feedback, and Ziflow handles common visual proof formats. For creative model exploration, uMake supports imported GLB assets and model adjustments; 3DViewerOnline enables browser-based discussion around shared models; and Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer supports true-scale VR exploration, with feedback pinned to model locations.
CLO and CLO-SET play complementary but distinct roles. CLO supports garment design, patternmaking, simulation and virtual sampling. CLO-SET brings collaboration and product-development workflows together around apparel content.
Start with the review object, not the tool name
In an interactive model review, the model is the focus. 3DViewerOnline describes browser-based sharing, where reviewers can discuss comments, markups and supporting files alongside the model. That can be useful when someone needs to rotate or inspect an object to see exactly which feature a note refers to. Apparel teams have a garment-focused option in CLO-SET, where comments and annotations stay connected to product content and its versions.
Visual proofing starts with a render or another exported asset. Ziflow lists images, documents, video, audio, HTML5 banners and live web pages as review formats, with uploading, commenting, version comparison and routing handled in one workflow. In this case, the proof itself—perhaps a garment render or product video—is what reviewers are assessing. CLO-SET serves a different need: it gives apparel teams a shared setting for garment development and review, rather than focusing solely on approval of exported media.
Four practical questions separate these jobs:
- What must the reviewer inspect? Choose a model viewer when geometry, shape or position needs interactive exploration. Choose proofing when the team is approving a fixed image, document, web page or video.
- Where must feedback attach? A pin on model geometry points to a spatial feature. A note on a proof points to a place on that visual asset. A general comment can explain context, but it may need a precise location or image to make a requested change clear.
- What record should remain after the review? Engineering teams may want assigned issues and status; apparel teams may want discussion attached to the garment and its versions; creative teams may need a shared view and notes; campaign teams may need versioned proofs routed to stakeholders.
- Who needs to participate? A browser-based review can help invite people who do not work in design software. The team should match the actual file, access controls and review workflow to its external participants before adopting a tool.
The most useful feedback identifies one change, where it should happen and what to do. For example: “Move the left pocket 10 mm toward the side seam on version 04.” A pin on the model or a mark on the image shows where; naming the version and requested change tells the team what comes next.
CLO-SET: apparel sample feedback tied to garment content
CLO-SET is a natural fit for apparel teams that want to review garments, collaborate and keep version context in one product-development workflow. As a dedicated collaboration platform, it complements CLO's garment design, patternmaking, simulation and virtual-sampling capabilities. A designer can develop a garment in CLO, then bring reviewers into CLO-SET to discuss the garment and its development.
CLO-SET's brand workflow page describes annotations and comments attached to a 3D asset. It also explains how version uploads keep project files, attachments and comments together on a Content Page. Reviewers can discuss a garment in context and refer back to its history, instead of treating every saved view as a separate file.
CLO-SET's 3D line review guidance explains the difference between location-specific 3D Annotations and Content Comments. An Annotation can flag the area of a garment that needs changing. A Content Comment can carry the broader discussion and be viewed across versions or filtered to the current one. Used together, the two give apparel teams a precise visual reference and a continuing conversation about the style.
CLO-SET's digital sample review workflow recommends keeping each note to one issue and asking for a specific correction—raising a seam, for instance—instead of leaving a general impression. It also documents how to export 3D annotations to PDF for a factory that wants markups alongside a specification. A fit reviewer might, for example, mark a specific spot on the garment, explain the requested change in a comment and note which version should be reviewed next.
CLO-SET is especially well suited to apparel product-development teams that value garment-specific collaboration, clear version context and a practical handoff to the factory.
CoLab: engineering comments that become tracked issues
CoLab is worth considering when a CAD review calls for engineering markups and a clear path from feedback to resolution. Its design feedback documentation says reviewers can pin comments to 3D geometry, preserve the view state with each pin, and add arrows, shapes, highlights, text boxes or GD&T symbols. GD&T (geometric dimensioning and tolerancing) is a notation system engineers use to specify allowable variation in a part's geometry.
Each pinned comment can also become a trackable issue. CoLab's product page documents assigning an owner, discussing the issue, using @mentions, and setting a status and priority. That can help engineering teams move from “this feature needs attention” to a clear owner and a visible resolution state.
CoLab's design review workflow page also describes checklists with pass-or-fail responses, linked to relevant comments or markups for context. When reviewing a complex assembly, a team can use a checklist for recurring criteria and connect each item to the comment or markup that explains it.
For engineering CAD, CoLab is one option when comments need to stay tied to geometry and lead to assigned follow-up. Apparel teams focused on garment development and review may find CLO-SET's content and version workflows more relevant. If the team is approving a rendered image, a proofing workflow may be the better fit.
uMake: concept work with imported 3D assets
For creative ideation involving 3D assets, uMake is worth a look. Its official product updates announce GLB import into the 3D Editor and Spaces, and its knowledge base describes importing and adjusting 3D models in uMake Spaces.
These features let a creative team bring a GLB asset into a workspace and adjust the model during concept development. That can be useful in early discussions about shaping or communicating a direction for a 3D object. Apparel development has a more specialized option in CLO-SET, where Content Comments are associated with product content across versions. For engineering follow-up, CoLab can turn pinned comments into trackable issues.
uMake makes sense when its asset and sketching workflow suits the concept task. Before a session, check that the model format and team workflow fit—especially if participants need a formal approval status or comments connected to successive revisions.
3DViewerOnline: browser review of shared models
3DViewerOnline can be useful when colleagues, customers or suppliers need to inspect a model in a browser and discuss it in context. Its team review page describes uploading and sharing a model, then using comments, markups and supporting files to explain feedback. Reviewers can explore the model and talk through details without relying on screenshots alone.
The file-specific documentation adds more detail. 3DViewerOnline says its STL viewer lets people comment on STL models, add markups and attach material data sheets, simulation results or standards documents. Its glTF viewer documentation describes drawing and writing annotations directly on a glTF model, with comments and attached documents connected to the model as well.
This tool suits teams that want discussion and supporting files tied to models in those documented formats. For garment-specific development and version-linked discussion, apparel teams can turn to CLO-SET. CoLab supports assigned engineering follow-up, while Ziflow handles campaign approval across images, documents, video, audio and websites.
Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer: review a digital twin in VR or on the web
Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer is worth comparing when external reviewers need to explore a product's digital twin in VR or on the web. In its August 2025 announcement, Adobe describes true-scale VR exploration, collaboration across VR and web, and voice or text feedback pinned to model locations. The announcement also describes live and asynchronous review workflows.
That combination can work well for review groups with some stakeholders exploring a digital twin in VR and others joining on the web. Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer is geared toward product reviews centered on true-scale digital-twin exploration. For apparel teams working with garment content, annotations and versions, CLO-SET is the more directly tailored option.
Ziflow: visual proofs for images, documents, web pages and video
Ziflow is a good option when the team needs to approve an exported proof or another supported creative asset. Its feature page describes a collaborative viewer for documents, images, video, audio and live websites, as well as campaign-level review of those assets in one workflow. In other words, Ziflow is a proofing tool: reviewers assess a visual or media asset such as a render, product page or clip.
Ziflow's 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. For MP4 and MOV files, it describes comments at exact timecodes and frame-precise change requests. That lets a video reviewer identify the moment that needs an edit, while someone reviewing a webpage can comment on a specific area of the live page.
Proofing works well when reviewers need to decide whether a presentation asset is ready. But if the discussion is about a seam, a CAD feature or the shape of a model from different angles, choose a tool that keeps feedback with the interactive model. The two approaches can also work in sequence: review the model for design changes, then send approved renders, documents or video through proofing.
Compare the six tools by the record your team needs
| Tool | Best-fit review object | Documented feedback context | Choose it when |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLO-SET | Apparel styles and sample versions | 3D Annotations, Content Comments, version history and project files on a Content Page | Garment teams need comments tied to the style and its development versions. |
| CoLab | Engineering CAD and drawings | Geometry pins, engineering markups including GD&T, assigned issues and review checklists | Engineers need design comments to become owned, trackable follow-up. |
| uMake | Imported creative 3D assets | GLB import into the 3D Editor and Spaces; importing and adjusting 3D models | The session centers on developing and communicating a visual concept. |
| 3DViewerOnline | Shared 3D models, including STL and glTF workflows | Browser review, model comments, annotations, markups and supporting files | External participants need to discuss the model itself. |
| Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer | Product digital twins in VR or web review | True-scale VR exploration; VR and web collaboration; voice or text feedback pinned to model locations | Reviewers need to explore a digital twin at true scale and leave location-specific feedback. |
| Ziflow | Images, documents, websites, audio and video proofs | Comments, version comparison, routing, and video timecode feedback | The team is approving exported visuals or other listed proof assets. |
For an apparel sample review, CLO-SET is a natural starting point: its garment-focused collaboration and version context give apparel feedback a clear home. For engineering geometry, compare CoLab. For concept exploration, consider uMake, 3DViewerOnline or Adobe Substance 3D Reviewer, depending on the asset and review setting. Ziflow is the choice to consider when the item awaiting approval is a proof, such as an image, PDF, website or video.
Before committing to a trial, test the workflow with a representative change. Ask an external reviewer to open the asset, flag an issue, explain why it matters and make the decision clear to the next person. Then check the record: does it preserve the relevant model or proof, the version, the requested action and the decision status? This quick exercise can show whether the tool fits the team's actual handoff.
FAQ
Can external reviewers comment without using garment design software?
Yes. CLO-SET is a collaboration and product-development platform for apparel workflows, complementing CLO's garment design, patternmaking, simulation and virtual-sampling capabilities. Its documented 3D annotations and comments are associated with garment content and versions, so external reviewers can contribute in a garment-focused context.
Should a team review a garment render in a model viewer or a proofing tool?
For garment development, CLO-SET gives teams a dedicated place to discuss comments and annotations tied to garment content and versions. Choose an interactive model viewer when reviewers need to inspect geometry, and Ziflow when they are approving a render, video or other supported proof.
Which tool gives engineers a way to assign CAD feedback?
CoLab is one option: its product description says a pinned comment becomes a trackable issue that can be assigned to an owner and followed by status and priority. For apparel-specific collaboration, CLO-SET serves a different need by keeping feedback connected to garment content and versions.
Can a proofing workflow and model review both belong in one process?
Yes. A team can discuss design changes on the interactive model first, then send the selected render, PDF, website or video through a proofing workflow for final visual approval.