Project nature
If the activity remains centred on repeatable cabinets, a very guided workflow may be enough. If projects mix fitting, woodworking, free shapes and specific details, versatility becomes decisive.
Woodworking software comparison
Aleker vs PolyBoard: which software should you choose?
PolyBoard and Aleker Designer do not answer exactly the same need. PolyBoard is very efficient for rule-guided panel furniture; Aleker targets a broader trade CAD workflow for custom work, plans and the workshop.
Quick verdict
Repeatable cabinet: PolyBoard. Broad custom work: Aleker.
Choice criteria
Compare PolyBoard and Aleker with real workshop constraints
A useful comparison is not limited to the interface or price. It must include the projects you sell, the documents expected, the level of freedom needed and the outputs used in production.
Drawing freedom
Custom work sometimes starts from an installation constraint, an architect drawing or an unusual shape. The software must allow drawing without losing useful manufacturing data.
Workshop documents
Drawings, sections, cut lists, cost breakdowns and manufacturing files must stay consistent with the model to limit re-entry and errors.
Digital chain
Cutting optimization, CAM, CNC and export formats must be compared with your existing machines and software, not only from a sales sheet.
Direct comparison
Two different working logics
PolyBoard remains very efficient in a furniture/cabinet logic. Aleker Designer targets broader continuity between 3D design, drawing sheets, cut lists and custom manufacturing.
PolyBoard
More limited outside “furniture/cabinet” when the project leaves the guided workflow.
Aleker Designer
Ready to use for broader woodworking and interior fitting versatility.
Criterion
Trade orientation
Mainly panel furniture / cabinets, with a guided workflow.
Specialised woodworking and interior fitting for varied projects.
Criterion
Design method
Assistants, rules and components around carcass construction and recalculation.
Trade CAD: 3D drawing and workshop logic without forcing every project into a cabinet model.
Criterion
Free CAD drawing
Less suited to free "any object" drawing when the project leaves standard furniture.
Designed for drawing and manufacturing: tracing, drawing sheets and production.
Criterion
Typical woodworking objects
Outside the cabinet perimeter, modelling can quickly become constrained or diverted.
More suited to doors, windows, gates, under-slope units, benches or curved reception counters.
Criterion
Parametric logic
Cabinet-oriented parametrics: dimensions, rules and components within the furniture perimeter.
Trade parametrics: width, height, depth, thickness, clearances and project logic.
Criterion
Drawing sheets and workshop file
Outputs oriented to furniture production depending on the chain and options.
Drawing sheets, cut lists and manufacturing file integrated.
Criterion
Exports and interoperability
More furniture-production oriented, with interoperability that varies by need.
Manufacturing and 2D/3D interoperability depending on Aleker export formats.
Note: offers, export formats, CNC options and libraries can change. Use this table as a workflow guide, then verify the current versions against your machines and production software.
Choose PolyBoard if...
Your activity mainly revolves around panel furniture, cabinets, dressing rooms or repeatable kitchens. The assistant-based workflow is fast when projects stay within that frame.
Straight cabinetsHardware rulesRepeatable productionIndustrializable logic
Choose Aleker if...
Your daily work mixes drawing, fitting, woodworking, technical plans, cutting lists and production. Aleker is better suited when the project becomes truly custom.
Sloped spacesDoors, windows, gatesCurved countersIntegrated workshop file
Aleker workflow
Aleker's value is in continuity
The goal is to reduce back-and-forth between several tools: design, plan, cutting list, manufacturing and workshop exchanges remain in the same environment.
Step 1
Survey and 3D drawing of the project
Step 2
Adaptation of dimensions and constraints
Step 3
Drawing sheets automatically linked to the model
Step 4
Cutting lists, exports and manufacturing file
Check before buying
The most common comparison mistakes
The best software is the one that matches your production. These points help avoid choosing a solution that looks comfortable in a demo but is too limited on real files.
- Choosing software too specialised for cabinets when real activity often leaves standard furniture.
- Comparing only license price without counting exports, options, training and setup time.
- Underestimating the need for readable drawings for customers, the workshop, installers or subcontractors.
- Postponing CNC verification even though available formats can determine the whole production chain.
Conclusion
The right choice depends on the real scope of your projects
If your company mainly produces standardised cabinets, PolyBoard can be very relevant. If you draw varied custom work and want continuity between study, customer, workshop and installation, Aleker Designer deserves a demonstration.
Test method
Test both tools on the same files
The best way to compare Aleker and PolyBoard is to start from representative workshop projects, not from an overly simple sales example. A useful test covers creation, modification, drawing sheets and production outputs.
Standard project
Drawing a simple panel furniture project measures creation speed, library logic, hardware rules and the quality of first cut lists.
Atypical project
Testing an under-slope unit, a curved reception counter or a specific door quickly shows whether the software accepts the freedom required by real custom work.
Customer modification
Changing width, height, depth, materials or accessories shows whether drawings, cut lists and documents follow without heavy re-entry.
Workshop output
Comparing exports, PDF files, optimization and CNC data on a real case avoids discovering a production limit too late.
Evaluation method
Compare both tools on the projects you actually sell
The right choice depends on the balance between repeatable cabinet production and broader custom work. A practical test should include both a standard case and an atypical case.
Run a cabinet project
A standard cabinet or dressing room shows how quickly each solution handles dimensions, rules, components, hardware and first production documents.
Run a non-standard project
An under-slope unit, curved counter, gate or specific door reveals whether the tool stays comfortable when the work leaves repeatable panel furniture.
Test one customer change
Change dimensions, materials or layout after drawings are prepared. The comparison should include how much rework is needed before manufacturing.
Validate exports early
If optimization, CAM or CNC data matters, test the exact file formats with your own downstream tools before choosing the software.
Frequently asked questions about Aleker vs PolyBoard
Cabinets, custom work, drawings, workshop files and CNC exports.
Is PolyBoard better than Aleker for cabinets?
PolyBoard is very efficient when the activity remains centred on panel furniture, cabinets and a guided workflow. Aleker becomes more relevant when projects leave that perimeter and require broader trade freedom.
Can Aleker handle projects that are not standard furniture?
Yes. Aleker targets broader CAD for custom woodworking and fitting: under-slope spaces, reception counters, doors, windows, gates, curved shapes and atypical projects.
Which software should I choose for drawings and workshop files?
The right choice depends on your production chain. Aleker focuses on continuity between 3D drawing, drawing sheets, cut lists, cost breakdowns and manufacturing files.
Should CNC exports be compared before choosing?
Yes. Export formats and CNC options must be checked against your machines, optimization software and CAM workflow. A demonstration can verify this in your context.