Architectural practice
without the compromise.
At a glance
Fit when documentation is the gap
SketchUp is built for persuasion: push-pull massing and quick concept models. The drawing set is downstream in LayOut, and it drifts every time the model changes. Synaps picks up where the set needs scale, tolerances, and a sheet index that stays in sync.
Side by side
Feature-by-feature comparison of Synaps and Trimble SketchUp.
| Feature | Synaps | SketchUp |
|---|---|---|
| Primary use | Technical documentation | Concept modelling + presentation |
| Plans, sections, details | First-class, linked | Generated via LayOut, regenerated on change |
| Dimensioning & tolerances | Construction-grade | Indicative |
| Sheet sets | Native | LayOut documents, manual sync |
| Materials & libraries | Office library with roles | Components + materials per file |
| Rendering | Not the goal | Plugin ecosystem (V-Ray, Enscape, etc.) |
| Massing speed | Plan-driven, not push-pull | Push-pull is the strength |
| Pricing model | Per editor, monthly | Per user, annual |
Honest tradeoffs
Migration path
A two-week pilot on a live job. If documentation does not get faster, stop, even if the comparison reads in our favour.
Import SketchUp geometry as reference. Set up one project in Synaps.
Draft plans and sections in Synaps. Keep SketchUp for ongoing client visuals.
Issue the first PDF set from Synaps. Decide which phase lives where going forward.
Synaps imports SketchUp geometry (SKP) as reference for plan layout. The push-pull workflow lives in SketchUp; the drawing set lives in Synaps.
No. The common pattern: SketchUp for concept and client persuasion, Synaps when the set needs to be issued.
Synaps is not a renderer. It outputs construction-grade documentation; for photo-real visuals, keep your renderer of choice.
If you do not issue technical drawing sets, yes. If you do, and SketchUp + LayOut keeps drifting, pilot for two weeks and decide.
More comparisons