The quote and the drawing come from the same rules, so engineering is not redrawing what sales already configured.
This is custom work against your CAD system's API, not a plugin and not a product we resell.
Shipped in production on SolidWorks, maintained across multiple years and two Windows generations.
★★★★★5.0 across verified Clutch reviews · proven with manufacturers ↗Sales configures the product to produce a quote, then engineering configures it again in CAD to produce the drawings. Every difference between those two passes is a rework loop, a margin surprise, or a part that gets made wrong.
AltoLeap builds the layer that removes the second pass: the rules that price the job also drive the CAD system that draws it.
Two production systems, one deep in CAD and one deep in quoting. Both solve the same rules problem underneath.
Configurable parameters control the drawings, and the system drives SolidWorks through its API to generate production-ready output in a fraction of the time it previously took. It is in production and the business depends on it daily.
“Honest and transparent with the work they provide… committed to having things up and working.”
It ran on a 2017 toolchain under Windows 10. We migrated it to 2025 under Windows 11 and documented it out of one person's head. This is the less glamorous half of the work, and it is usually the half that decides whether the first half survives.
Equipment shipping to more than 150 countries, running a quoting tool we built with a configurator, multi-level discount structure, multilingual output and ERP integration. The same rules problem, solved on the quoting side.
Four steps. Nothing gets configured twice, and nothing gets priced from a number someone typed in separately.
What can combine with what, what each option does to dimensions, materials and cost, what is simply not buildable. Sales and engineering read the same rules because there is only one set.
A configuration resolves to a parameter set. The automation feeds those parameters to the CAD system rather than asking a drafter to rebuild the model.
The CAD system generates the drawings, parts and documents the job needs. What comes out is production-ready, not a starting point someone finishes by hand.
Quantities, materials and derived costs come back out and price the quote. The number the customer sees is built from the thing that will actually be manufactured.
The API differs between CAD systems. The pattern does not: resolve the configuration, push parameters, generate output, read results back.
The Federal Screen platform drives it through its API in production today, and we have maintained and modernized that integration over multiple years and two Windows generations.
We have not yet shipped an Inventor build, and we would rather tell you that on a call than discover it together in month two. If Inventor is your stack, ask us directly what that means for timeline and risk, and we will answer it straight.
If your CAD system exposes an API and your products are rules-driven, the approach usually applies. If it does not, we will say so early rather than sell you a discovery phase to find out.
Drafting time sits on the critical path of quoting or production.
The same product family gets drawn repeatedly with different parameters.
Errors between the quote and the drawing are costing real money.
Every job is genuinely one of a kind, with no reusable rules.
The product changes faster than rules can be maintained.
The drawings are simple enough that automation costs more than the drafting it replaces.
We have talked clients out of this. It is a poor fit more often than the software industry admits.
CAD CPQ is quoting software that is connected to your CAD system, so a configured quote can drive the model and produce drawings rather than handing a drafter a specification to rebuild. The value is in removing the second configuration pass, not in the connection itself.
Yes, when the product is rules-driven and the CAD system exposes an API. The configuration resolves to a parameter set, the automation feeds those parameters to CAD, and CAD generates the drawings and parts. We have this running in production on SolidWorks at Federal Screen. It does not work for genuinely one-off designs with no reusable rules.
The approach is the same as the SolidWorks work we have in production: resolve the configuration, push parameters through the API, generate output, read results back. We have not yet shipped an Inventor integration, so if you are on Inventor we will be upfront about where the unknowns are before you commit to a phase.
Neither. It is custom software built against your CAD system's API and your product rules. There are off-the-shelf CPQ products with CAD modules, and if one of them fits your products, buying it will be cheaper than building. We will tell you if we think that is your situation.
Accuracy improves because the quote and the drawing come from the same rules. Quantities and materials are derived from the configuration that will actually be manufactured, rather than estimated separately and reconciled later.
The integration has to be maintained. We migrated Federal Screen's CAD API from a 2017 toolchain on Windows 10 to 2025 on Windows 11, and removed the single-developer dependency at the same time. Budget for that upkeep rather than treating the build as finished at go-live.
Most first phases fall in the $50,000 to $100,000 range, depending on rules complexity, CAD scope and integrations. The AI Opportunity Blueprint is a $2,000 fixed-price way to scope it first, credited toward Phase 1 if you go ahead.
Book a 20-minute fit call. If drawing automation is not the right answer for your products, we will say so on the call.