Two years ago I started building DimenPro because I was tired of watching small machine shops still doing manual ballooning by hand on paper, or wrestling with inspection report software that cost $5,000 a year and did far more than their shops needed. I’m a solo developer. I built DimenPro on weekends and evenings after my day job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DimenPro now has dozens of paying customers across the US, EU, and Asia \u2014 almost all of them small machine shops doing First Article Inspection for aerospace, automotive, or medical supply chains. I’ve also talked at length with engineers who tried DimenPro and chose something else, which has taught me as much as the customers who stayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This guide isn’t a sales pitch. DimenPro is one option in a crowded field, and for a lot of shops it’s the wrong fit. What I want to do here is honestly map out the FAI software landscape as I see it in 2026 \u2014 including which tools beat DimenPro on which axis, and which kind of shop should buy what.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“FAI software” gets used for very different things depending on who’s selling it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Most small shops doing 5\u201350 FAIs a month with manual measurement (calipers, micrometers, height gauges) need the first two. The third and fourth are often over-built and over-priced for that workflow. If a vendor demo shows you their FMEA module, their supplier portal, and their root-cause analysis dashboard within the first ten minutes, that vendor probably isn’t selling to your shop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you’re searching for “PPAP software” or “AS9102 software” or “inspection report software”, you’re often looking for the same kind of tool. The technical workflow is nearly identical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nsee our deep dive on ballooning drawings in quality inspection<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
What changes is the industry standard:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- AS9102<\/strong> \u2014 aerospace standard, governed by SAE.
(https:\/\/www.sae.org\/standards\/as9102c-aerospace-series-first-article-inspection-requirements<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n- PPAP<\/strong> \u2014 automotive standard, defined by AIAG.
(https:\/\/www.aiag.org\/training-and-resources\/manuals\/details\/PPAP-4<\/a>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n- ISIR<\/strong> \u2014 automotive equivalent of FAI used by some Tier-1 suppliers in lieu of full PPAP.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- First Article Inspection (FAI)<\/strong> \u2014 generic umbrella term that covers all the above.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Tools that handle AS9102 well almost always handle PPAP and ISIR \u2014 the underlying engine is the same, only the report templates differ. So when a vendor claims “AS9102 support” but doesn’t mention PPAP, it’s worth asking whether they ship PPAP templates out of the box or whether you build them yourself. Most ship them; some don’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the rest of this guide I’ll use “FAI software” and “inspection report software” interchangeably as umbrella terms. Everything I say applies to PPAP and ISIR submissions equally unless I call out a specific difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The two questions a small shop needs to answer first<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Before evaluating any first article inspection software<\/strong> (or any FAI tool, depending on what your customers call it), decide:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Where does your team already live?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If your inspectors live in Excel \u2014 entering measured values, building report templates, sending .xlsx files to customers \u2014 your friction surface is “moving data out of Excel.” If they live in CAD or CMM software, your friction surface is “exporting to a customer-acceptable format.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This single question eliminates half the market for you. Excel-first shops shouldn’t buy CAD-integrated tools. CMM-first shops shouldn’t buy Excel add-ins.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. How much “automation” do you actually want?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
OCR-based auto-ballooning sounds great. In practice, accuracy on 2D drawings is around 85\u201390%. That means every drawing has 10\u201315% of dimensions that need manual cleanup, and an inspector has to verify all of them anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For a 50-dimension drawing, manual ballooning takes about 10 minutes. Auto-ballooning plus cleanup takes 6\u20138 minutes. The savings are real but smaller than vendor demos suggest.<\/strong> And manual ballooning is part of how a careful inspector decides which characteristics actually matter \u2014 it’s not pure overhead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you’re doing hundreds of drawings a week with similar templates, automation pays for itself fast. If you’re doing 5\u201315 a week with varied complexity, manual is often faster than fighting OCR errors.<\/strong> Be honest about which one you actually do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 2026 landscape<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The inspection report software market is crowded but predictable: a handful of dominant tools clustered around different buyer profiles. I’ll group them by how they fit different shops, not by vendor marketing tier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Enterprise tier<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
InspectionXpert (Hexagon)<\/a> \u2014 Annual subscription, pricing not public. Strong AS9102 and PPAP automation, OCR-based ballooning, integrates with major CAD and CMM systems. Common in QA departments with dedicated IT budgets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Verisurf<\/strong> <\/a>\u2014 Pricing not public. Full metrology suite with FAI as one module. Designed for shops with portable CMMs, scanners, or laser trackers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Net-Inspect<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 Subscription, web-based QMS, pricing not public. Common in aerospace supply chains because some primes accept submissions through it. Often paired with InspectionXpert: ballooning happens in InspectionXpert, then the result is uploaded to Net-Inspect for delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DISCUS FAI<\/a><\/strong>\u2014 One-time perpetual license, pricing not public. Comprehensive AS9102 templates, dedicated FAI focus. One of the more established tools in this category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1Factory<\/strong> <\/a>\u2014 Pricing not public. Focused on FAI and ballooning automation, marketing emphasis on cycle-time reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’ve had personal experience with this tier of tools. My day-job company spent $4,000\u2013$5,000 USD on a similar product: the upfront engineering support was substantial, the learning curve was steep, and a customer-service engineer spent several days configuring our Excel export templates. What came out was genuinely complicated. The result was disappointing for what we paid \u2014 one wrong click and the export would break. The software was eventually abandoned at my day-job company. That’s part of why DimenPro exists.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Web SaaS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Balloonist.io<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 Around $30\/month. Browser-based, AI-driven, exports AS9102 templates to Excel. Drawings stay client-side, which addresses some confidentiality concerns. The developer is responsive on Reddit. Good for shops without ITAR or DFARS confidentiality requirements that prefer monthly subscriptions over upfront purchase.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mavlon<\/strong> <\/a>\u2014 Pay-per-use AI ballooning, browser-based. First drawing free, then usage-based. Newest entrant, focused on OCR accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CadNexa<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 Subscription, multiple tiers ($5\u2013$30\/month) depending on whether
you need just ballooning or the full platform that bundles 3D measurement and sourcing tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe honest trade-off with web SaaS tools: they typically can’t be used by shops whose customers prohibit putting drawings on third-party servers. ITAR-controlled work, defense primes, and many automotive Tier-1 suppliers all have policies that exclude web SaaS for this kind of data.<\/strong> For those shops, web SaaS is a non-starter regardless of features or price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Standalone desktop apps (perpetual)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If web SaaS isn’t a fit \u2014 whether because of confidentiality requirements or a preference for ownership over subscription \u2014 standalone desktop tools are another answer. The shared characteristic of this category: runs locally, perpetual license, lives alongside Excel but doesn’t operate inside it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
QA-CAD (IQM Solutions)<\/strong> \u2014 Two versions, with prices listed on their official website:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- QA-CAD LT<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 $390 USD perpetual (single-machine) \/ $690 USD perpetual (network license, i.e., Floating License). Manual ballooning only.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- QA-CAD Full<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 $1,195 USD perpetual (single-machine) \/ $1,585 USD perpetual (network license \/ Floating). Includes auto-ballooning and full FAIR generation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Of all the standalone desktop tools, QA-CAD LT is the closest competitor to DimenPro on price and target user. If you want a non-Excel desktop tool with one-time ownership rather than subscription, QA-CAD LT is the most direct comparison.<\/strong> If you need auto-ballooning, QA-CAD Full is the cheapest credible option in that category, and the network license version supports multi-user shared activation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Excel-native (add-in)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
DimenPro<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 A solo-developer-run Excel add-in. Not a standalone app, not SaaS.<\/strong> Perpetual license, no subscription (latest pricing on the Pricing page<\/a>). The FAI form, balloons, GD&T entries (see our guide to inserting GD&T symbols in Excel for free<\/a><\/em>), and tolerance flagging all happen inside Excel. Manual ballooning by design.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
I built DimenPro because I wanted something specifically for shops that already do everything in Excel. The trade-offs are honest:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- No auto-ballooning.<\/strong> I intentionally skipped OCR because the cleanup cost on 10\u201315% errors eats most of the time savings, and I’d rather ship a workflow that’s predictable than one that’s “almost magic.” Engineers who want OCR should look at QA-CAD Full or Balloonist.io.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- No cloud collaboration.<\/strong> Files are local, period. Good for ITAR and confidentiality work, bad for distributed teams.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- No CMM integration.<\/strong> If your inspection process starts with a CMM exporting data, DimenPro is the wrong tool.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
What you do get: the FAI report lives inside the same .xlsx file as your data<\/strong>, so there’s no export step at all. You own the license forever \u2014 no subscription to manage. And because I’m a one-person operation, every email gets answered by me directly.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
DimenPro is the right tool for a specific kind of shop: 5\u201330 person, Excel-first, manual measurement, doing FAI for aerospace, automotive, or medical supply chains, frustrated with paying thousands per year per seat for tools that don’t quite fit their workflow. If that’s not you, one of the tools above is probably a better choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How small shops actually choose<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
After watching dozens of customers buy DimenPro and hearing from many more who chose other tools, here’s the pattern I see:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- The tool has to handle the customer’s specific report format.<\/strong> Most aerospace customers want AS9102 forms 1, 2, and 3. Automotive often wants PPAP. Some customers have proprietary templates. The tool either handles your customer formats or it doesn’t<\/strong> \u2014 and “we’ll add it in the next version” rarely meets your delivery deadline.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The shop already has habits.<\/strong> Excel shops stay in Excel. CAD shops stay in CAD. Forcing a workflow change costs far more than the tool’s licensing fee.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Confidentiality requirements are binary.<\/strong> Either your customer allows web-based tools or they don’t. If they don’t, no amount of feature comparison will save you.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Per-seat cost matters more than total budget.<\/strong> A $2,000-per-year tool for one engineer feels different from the same tool for five. Per-seat pricing kills tools faster than total cost does.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Onboarding time is the silent cost.<\/strong> “Half a day of training” sounds small until you realize you’ll be onboarding every new hire forever. Tools that work like Excel onboard in 30 minutes because everyone already knows Excel.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Where to start<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
If you’re evaluating FAI software for a small shop in 2026:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Already living in Excel and want to own your tool: try DimenPro<\/strong> \u6216 QA-CAD LT<\/strong> ($390 perpetual single-machine \/ $690 Floating)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Have CAD and CMM and want enterprise tooling: request a paid trial of InspectionXpert<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Want web SaaS and don’t have ITAR concerns: try Balloonist.io<\/strong> ($30\/month)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Doing fewer than 5 FAIs a month and want zero spend: stick with Adobe + Excel + macros<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
I built DimenPro because I believe handling everything directly inside Excel best fits the workflow of customers who already live in Excel \u2014 and almost nobody else in the market is doing that<\/strong>. Two years and dozens of customers in, that niche is clearly real \u2014 but it’s also clearly a niche, not a mainstream choice. That’s fine by me; I’d rather serve the shops I built it for than try to be everything to everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whatever you choose, the most important thing is that the tool fits your existing workflow rather than forcing a new one.<\/strong> Software is the cheap part of FAI. Your inspector’s time is the expensive part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n