ACCURACY
Anyone can say their software reads drawings. The question a contractor should ask is measured against what, and what happens on the drawings it cannot read. Both answers are on this page.
98.1%
FIELD ACCURACY
Across every field on nine drawings with hand-written ground truth.
0
ROOMS INVENTED
Nothing reported that is not on the drawing. This is the number that matters most.
1
ROOM MISSED
Out of the full set. We publish this next to the others rather than behind them.
A benchmark is only worth the ground truth behind it. Ours is nine real drawings whose every room name, every area, and every project metric was transcribed by hand before the software was ever pointed at them. The benchmark then compares field by field — not page by page, not document by document — and reports the percentage that match.
It runs on every change. A change that improves one drawing and quietly breaks another shows up as a lower number before it ships, which is the entire point of having one.
Two drawings can both be "read successfully" and one of them be useless. Field accuracy is the only measure that tells them apart.
A missed room costs you a few minutes. An invented one costs you a phone call to an architect about a room that does not exist — and once that happens, every other line in the report has to be checked by hand, which is the whole saving gone. So the engine is built to refuse rather than to fill in. Three examples of it refusing:
A SETBACK IT WILL NOT READ
On a zoning statistics block, a number sitting beside "required front yard setback" can be the setback or it can be a dimension the drawing happens to place at that height. Where the row is ambiguous the field is left empty. Reading it wrong once produced a 0.17 m front yard — an instant zoning failure, invented, on a compliant house.
INSULATION IT WILL NOT FAIL YOU ON
The code sets a minimum effective thermal resistance. A drawing note usually gives the nominal rating of the insulation alone, and the two differ by about a third. Comparing them directly would report a correctly designed wall as a critical code failure, so a nominal value is reported for review with its arithmetic shown, never failed.
A DOOR RULE IT WILL NOT MISAPPLY
Code minimums for door width apply to a particular door — the required exit, the barrier-free entrance — not to every door in the building. Applied indiscriminately, an ordinary house produced dozens of critical failures. Where the schedule does not say which door is which, the check is skipped rather than guessed.
Nine drawings is nine drawings. It is enough to catch a change that breaks something, and it is not a claim about every drawing ever produced. The benchmark set is residential and light-commercial work in Ontario and British Columbia; a drawing unlike those is not represented in the figure.
Reading a drawing and knowing which code it answers to are separate questions, and the second one has its own honest answer. Seven code packs ship today, across Canada and the United States. Ontario, British Columbia and California are verified — every rule checked against the authority by someone other than whoever wrote it. Florida, New York City and the two model-code baselines check what those jurisdictions adopt unchanged and have not had their local amendments applied, and the report says which of the two you are reading before it shows you a finding. Rate and cost data runs wider than the rules do — 43 cities across Canada, the US and Europe — but a European code pack is authored on request rather than shipped. The full coverage table →
The number covers what is extracted — rooms, areas, dimensions, schedules, project metrics. It is not a claim that every code rule is automated. Some rules genuinely cannot be settled from a drawing: an air-tightness test result, an energy label at occupancy, a solar-ready roof provision. Those are shown as review items and the trade selector says so before you run the audit, rather than presenting a checklist as if it were a finding.
An audit is a second set of eyes, not a stamp. It does not replace the professional who seals the drawings.
120+
REAL DRAWINGS IN THE TEST CORPUS
Permit sets, tender sets, architectural, structural and electrical — in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Not synthetic files.
14
DRAWING FORMATS READ
Including the DWG the architect actually sent, rather than a flattened PDF export of it.
33/33
CAD FILES READ WITHOUT ERROR
Every CAD drawing in the corpus, including six that older tooling silently truncated to nothing.
900+
AUTOMATED TESTS
Each one written against a specific wrong answer the software produced on a real drawing.
The only benchmark that settles it for you is your own set. Seven days, no card.