AI for Engineering Knowledge Management
Compare AI design review tools by what they check and miss: DFMXpress, Creo ModelCHECK, Ansys SimAI Pro, custom scripts and Leo, plus a two-week trial plan.
·
⏱
5 min read
Dr. Maor Farid
Maor Farid is the Co-Founder and CEO of Leo AI. With a background in mechanical engineering and AI research, including a postdoc and Fulbright fellowship at MIT, he builds tools that give engineers instant access to verified technical knowledge. Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree.
BOTTOM LINE
Use a geometry checker for rule violations, a simulation predictor for performance questions and a knowledge tool for past designs and standards, because no one tool covers all three. Start with the miss that costs your team the most change orders, then trial on released designs. Leo fits where reviewers need cited answers from your PDM.
Match the tool to the miss you need to stop. Geometry checkers such as SOLIDWORKS DFMXpress flag rule violations in a model, simulation tools such as Ansys SimAI Pro predict physical fields, and knowledge tools answer review questions from your own files.
If your team reviews releases from a CAD model, a drawing and a PDM vault, no single tool covers all three, so choose by what each one can read and what it hands the reviewer.
Four criteria decide whether a review tool fits a team
A design review fails in one of four ways, and each way maps to a criterion you can test before you buy.
Rule coverage. Does the tool check the rules your company enforces or only generic ones? DFMXpress, for example, applies rule sets for drilling, milling, turning, sheet metal and injection molding, so its coverage follows those five process families (SOLIDWORKS).
Data reach. Does it read only the open model, or also the vault, past drawings and test reports? The open model cannot say whether a similar design failed in service. See why tribal knowledge goes missing.
Sign-off trail. Does a waived finding leave a record? Creo RuleCHECK requires a documented reason before a hard rule can be overridden (PTC).
Evidence per finding. Can the reviewer click through to the rule, the standard clause or the source file? A finding without a source costs a senior engineer time to confirm or dismiss.
Judgment stays with the reviewer on all four. For safety-critical sign-off, a licensed engineer still approves the result.
IN PRACTICE
It surfaces the relevant internal material, previous design decisions, past calculations, and backs everything with a cited source I can actually click on and verify.
- Yuval F., Clalit
Five options compared on what each reads and returns
The rows below come from each vendor's own documentation, linked in Sources. None of it is hands-on testing.
Option | What it checks or returns | Data it reads | Team features | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SOLIDWORKS DFMXpress | Rule checks for drilling, milling, turning, sheet metal and injection molding | The open part model | Rule values are set by your team | Manufacturability checks before the meeting |
Creo ModelCHECK and RuleCHECK | Checks parts, drawings and assemblies against a configurable list of company standards, with an HTML report | The open model and drawing | Soft and hard rules; hard-rule overrides need a documented reason | Creo teams that must record waivers |
Ansys SimAI Pro | Predicts new physical fields from AI models trained on earlier 3D simulation data | Your previous 3D simulation data | Not stated on the documentation home page | Performance questions when past simulations exist |
Custom rule scripts | Whatever your team writes, such as naming or property checks | Whatever the script queries | Owned and maintained by your team | Company-specific rules no vendor ships |
Leo | Answers review questions with cited sources from standards and from your connected systems; does not check geometry | PDM, PLM, local and network directories, ERP | SOC 2 certified; customer files are not used for training | Reviewers who need past designs, standards and test data in the room |
What each option catches and what it leaves to the reviewer
SOLIDWORKS DFMXpress. The tech tip lists hole-to-edge distance, bend radii and minimum and maximum wall thickness for molded parts. It reads one open model, so it cannot tell a reviewer that a similar part failed in service. Run it before the meeting so the meeting spends no time on missing fillets.
Creo ModelCHECK and RuleCHECK. ModelCHECK can run automatically when you regenerate or save a model and reports violations in an HTML report (PTC). RuleCHECK ties each model to a rule file by its RC_MODEL_TYPE parameter, so steel, sheet metal and casting parts can carry different rules. That gives the clearest sign-off trail in this group, at the cost of writing and maintaining the rule files.
Ansys SimAI Pro. The documentation says it trains models on previous 3D simulation data and predicts new physical fields in minutes (Ansys). A prediction can be no better than the simulations behind it. Check predictions against a fresh solver run on a few designs before one supports a release decision.
Custom rule scripts. A script checks exactly the company rules you write, such as part number format or a required material property. Give every rule a named owner, because a script keeps passing after a standard or a template changes unless someone updates it.
Run a two-week trial on your own released designs
Vendor demos use clean models. Test each tool on designs that already escaped a review, so you can count what it would have caught.
List 20 released designs from the last 24 months and every issue that escaped review, using the design-caused changes in your ECO history.
Run each tool on the same 20 designs without telling it which issues escaped.
Count three numbers per tool: recall (escaped issues it flagged divided by escaped issues), precision (real issues divided by all flags) and minutes a reviewer needs to confirm or dismiss one flag.
Set pass criteria before you look at results: recall of at least 50% on issue types inside the tool's scope, and no more than 5 minutes per flag.
If a tool reviews GD&T, test it on drawings that cite ASME Y14.5 and confirm which edition it applies. ASME lists Y14.5 - 2018 (R2024) as the current standard.
Worked example with illustrative inputs, not measured results: 12 escaped issues across the 20 designs. A tool raises 40 flags, 9 are real issues, and 6 of those 9 are among the 12 escaped ones.
Measure | Calculation | Result |
|---|---|---|
Recall | 6 / 12 | 50% |
Precision | 9 / 40 | 22.5% |
Review time at 5 minutes per flag | 40 x 5 | 200 minutes |
That tool meets the recall bar and costs about 10 minutes of reviewer time per design (200 minutes over 20 designs). Decide whether 22.5% precision is acceptable before you buy, not after.
Leo answers the review questions the checkers cannot
Leo covers the knowledge side of a review. You give it the design under review and ask what your reviewers ask: whether this alloy has been used in a similar application before, or which test reports cover this joint.
Leo reads the sources your organization connects, including PDM, PLM, local and network directories and ERP, plus its training set of 1M+ pages of engineering standards and books. It returns an answer with a cited source for each claim, so a reviewer opens the past design or the clause and decides in the meeting instead of logging an action item.
One limit: Leo does not run geometry or manufacturability rules, so a missing fillet still needs a checker such as DFMXpress or ModelCHECK before the meeting. Data handling is on the security page: Leo is SOC 2 certified and does not use your CAD files or documents to train its model.
For the pre-meeting checks, read DFM analysis tools with instant feedback. For the review workflow itself, see AI design review that catches errors before manufacturing.
FAQ
SOLIDWORKS Tech Tip - Using DFMXpress, SOLIDWORKS Blog, accessed 2026-11-09
About Creo ModelCHECK, PTC Help Center, accessed 2026-11-09
Defining Rules (RuleCHECK), PTC Help Center, accessed 2026-11-09
Ansys SimAI Pro documentation, Ansys, accessed 2026-11-09
Y14.5 - Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME, accessed 2026-11-09
Leo AI security, Leo AI, accessed 2026-11-09
30 Minutes on Your Own Design Reviews
See what Leo surfaces for a review on your own data.
Book a 30-minute walkthrough. We take a design from your last review, ask the questions your reviewers asked, and show which answers Leo sources from your PDM and standards.
#1 New AI Software Globally - G2 2026
Enterprise-grade security
Trusted by world-class engineering teams
