Choosing a cloud BIM platform for the work your team does

A BIM manager may need model versions and issue exchange. A surveyor handing over a point cloud needs a client to find and inspect a location. An owner may require formal approval records. These are related but separate workflows.

Four workflow categories

Vendors may bundle several categories. Check which modules and rights are included in the offer. IFC viewing alone is not a CDE, and a CDE may not provide the best route for inspecting a large survey.

Start with the data that must travel

IFC, point clouds and supporting files

Inventory the actual outputs: IFC models, E57 or LAS/LAZ clouds, drawings, images and reports. IFC exchanges structured model objects and information. A point cloud records captured geometry. Both can matter when checking built conditions, but neither replaces the other.

Open a representative file in each candidate tool. Check IFC version, object properties, levels and units. If a survey is central, check its format, orientation and alignment with the model. A successful screenshot is not proof that the receiving team can find the needed information.

Versions and data exit

Ask who may upload a new version, whether previous states remain accessible and how users identify the current one. Also ask what can be exported when the project or contract ends: source files, issues and contextual documents. A cloud workflow is hard to change when only its rendered views remain.

Test permissions and collaboration

• Test the data producer's rights
• Test the reviewer's rights
• Test an external client's route

Define the administrator, data producer, reviewer and client reader. For each role, test opening, measuring, annotating, downloading and administering. A public link and an invited account create different access and accountability.

If issues must move between BIM applications, test BCF or the relevant exchange route. buildingSMART treats IFC model exchange and BCF issue communication as distinct. An annotation displayed in one tool is not automatically a tracked issue in another team's CDE.

Include someone outside the team that configured the workspace. Ask them to locate the right version and area, understand the question and deliver a response. That exposes permission and versioning problems internal users often miss.

Autodesk Forma (formerly Autodesk Construction Cloud): manage project data

Best suited to. Autodesk renamed Autodesk Construction Cloud to Autodesk Forma in March 2026. Depending on the subscribed modules, Forma Data Management organizes files, versions and permissions, while Forma Design Collaboration exchanges design models between teams. Assess it when a project already works in Revit and Autodesk tools, or needs a structured document workflow.

Data and decisive test. Have an external participant open the actual IFC and project documents, receive a version and respond to an issue. If a point cloud matters, test its real format and size. Confirm the modules and access rights in the proposed offer: the Forma name alone does not grant every participant every workflow.

Trimble Connect: share models and surveys across disciplines

Best suited to. Trimble Connect brings project files and models together for browser-based review. Its documented format support includes IFC and, with processing conditions, E57, LAS and LAZ clouds in the browser. It is a candidate when teams using different authoring tools need to inspect models alongside surveys.

Data and decisive test. Upload a representative IFC and cloud. Ask an external reader to find an object, inspect its property and locate it in the survey. Record processing time, permissions and the exact route for your cloud type; format support alone does not prove a smooth review at your project scale.

Catenda Hub: coordinate in an open CDE

Best suited to. Catenda Hub combines document management, federated IFC models, approvals and BCF issues in a common data environment. Assess it when several disciplines need a shared model and a documented route for exchanges and document statuses.

Data and decisive test. Catenda also documents E57 and LAS cloud viewing alongside IFC. Test loading, coordinates and the link between an issue and its source model or document on your files. Check whether its approval workflow matches the project's contractual process.

BIMcollab: resolve BIM coordination issues

Best suited to. BIMcollab focuses on IFC model review, IDS requirements and BCF issue management. Its browser WebViewer exposes models and properties. It is worth testing when teams need to identify, assign and close coordination issues across disciplines.

Data and decisive test. Upload two model versions and round-trip a BCF issue with the team's authoring tool. Check that the object link, owner and status remain intact. If the laser survey is central, assess that workflow separately; an IFC viewer does not establish an equivalent point-cloud review path.

Graphisoft BIMcloud: collaborate in Archicad

Best suited to. Graphisoft BIMcloud primarily supports Archicad Teamwork, its users and projects. File sharing and BIMx connections extend that authoring workflow. Consider it first when several authors must work on the same Archicad project.

Data and decisive test. Ask an Archicad author to join the project and deliver a usable version to a recipient who does not use Archicad. Verify licensing, permissions, IFC export and where formal approvals are recorded. Co-authoring a native model and governing all project documents are different requirements.

ATIS.cloud: inspect and hand over a 3D survey

• Inspect and measure 3D project data
• Share according to rights and offer
• Evaluate CAD/BIM production separately in ATIS.cad

ATIS.cloud provides browser-based inspection, measurement, annotation and sharing of 3D project data. It supports point clouds and, according to plan, IFC resources and cloud-to-model comparison. The comparison guide states that each use consumes tokens. Its documentation distinguishes invited members from public project links, which depend on subscription settings.

ATIS.cad serves another stage: creating drawings and building objects from survey data with human review. Its early access is requested and activated by the team separately from the ATIS.cloud trial. These capabilities do not promise complete management of document approvals, contracts or construction RFIs.

Test ATIS.cloud when the real-world survey is central to the job. If project-wide document governance is the primary requirement, assess a CDE for that role and confirm how survey data will be reviewed alongside it. The systems can also be complementary if the authoritative version and decision record are clear.

Comparison at a glance. These platforms serve different jobs. The last column is a test to run on your own project data, not a universal score.

Ask precise governance questions

• Identify the offered data region
• Confirm who administers the project
• Test revocation and data return

Hosting region matters, but does not settle compliance on its own. Ask where data resides, who administers it, which subprocessors are involved, how backups and revocation work, and how files can be exported or deleted. Confirm the contractual terms that apply to your organization.

ATIS.cloud describes sovereignty options across more than 22 countries. Confirm the relevant region and access commitments for your project rather than inferring automatic compliance from geography.

Run a three-task comparison

Prepare an authorized IFC, a cloud if needed, and one review question. Have users:

1. Open the correct version and locate an asset or area.
2. Check a property, measurement or survey-to-model difference.
3. Send a finding to its owner and retrieve the response.

Record what worked, the permissions required, the exported formats and manual steps. Weight inspection, coordination, governance, hosting, integrations and cost against your project priorities rather than adopting a universal ranking.

Let the decision owner define success

One project may need several systems. A BIM manager may require a controlled model version and issue register. A surveyor needs to deliver measured site data to someone who does not use the capture software. An owner may need formal approval evidence. The fact that a platform opens an IFC file does not prove that it covers each workflow.

Ask every role to state an observable acceptance criterion:

• BIM manager: find the current model version, locate an issue and assign a response to another discipline;
• surveyor: deliver the cloud with its metadata and let a recipient complete a measurement or review;
• operator: identify an asset, access approved documentation and see the data date;
• owner: find who reviewed a question and where the formal decision is retained.

Separate application features from organizational procedure. A mark-up can help coordination without being an approval. File history can exist without managing the contractual status of a document. Test the entire route from upload to the accountable person's response. A shortcut that works for a pilot team may fail for a client with different rights.

Test data exit before committing

Request a representative export: original IFC, source cloud or agreed format, issues and necessary metadata. Open it in the destination environment. Check names, properties, coordinates and relationships that matter to the project. When an invited account or project link closes, the contractually required files and decisions should remain recoverable through the agreed process.

This is not a universal vendor ranking. It reveals which task fails and how costly it would be to correct. When evaluating ATIS.cloud for surveys and IFC, test its sharing and comparison conditions under the intended offer. When the central decision concerns document governance, assess that need in the project's chosen CDE.

Explore the ATIS.cloud route: review BIM and construction, supported formats and BIM comparison, then request a demo on representative data. For a single client handover, use the IFC sharing guide.

Run a short procurement test with your own files

Vendor demonstrations often start with optimized sample models and administrator rights. A useful cloud BIM platform test starts with the project's ordinary files and roles. Select one IFC that contains the properties your team uses, a point cloud if existing conditions matter and one issue that must reach another person. Remove confidential information or use an authorized test set.

Run the same sequence in each candidate environment:

1. Ask the data producer to upload the correct model and record its revision.
2. Ask a reviewer with limited rights to find an object, inspect its properties and identify an issue.
3. Ask an external recipient to open the shared material and respond using the approved channel.
4. Ask the project administrator to revoke access and recover the files and review record.

Time the manual steps and note failures, but do not collapse the result into a generic feature score. A team may accept an extra upload step if the model remains usable; it may reject a fast interface if a required property disappears. The failure that blocks the project decision deserves the greatest weight. Record the subscription tier, enabled modules and user role during each test so that the result can be repeated.

Separate CDE governance from 3D inspection

A CDE evaluation should check information states, document approvals, issue ownership, audit history and contractual retention. A 3D inspection evaluation should check the usability of the survey and model for the recipient. Some products cover both, but the test should still keep those requirements distinct. For ATIS.cloud, confirm the inspection and sharing route on the intended offer and use a CDE where the project requires formal document governance beyond that scope.

When the project uses IFC and BCF between teams, ask who owns the source IFC, how an issue points back to a model version and how a resolved issue is closed. A visible annotation is not automatically a portable BCF issue or a formal approval. Finally, decide which environment holds the authoritative decision after a model is replaced. This prevents a cloud workspace from becoming a collection of attractive but untraceable views.

Evaluate total effort alongside the feature list. Count internal users, external reviewers, data volumes, retention time and modules required for the tested workflow. Add administration, training and project-close export. A low entry price does not help if the client cannot complete the review; a broad platform may be unnecessary when a team only needs occasional inspection. Confirm commercial terms for the relevant country and offer with each vendor rather than treating a marketing page as a universal quote.