How to evaluate AI PCB software
Seven questions that separate a tool you can build with from a demo that looks impressive. Ask them of every vendor — including this one.
Most “AI designs your PCB” claims fall apart on the same few points: the output is not real fabrication data, the result cannot be checked outside the vendor’s own tool, or it changes every time you run it. Each question below says what a good answer looks like first, so the list is useful even if you never try our editor.
1.Does it export standard Gerber files?
A real answer names the formats: Gerber RS-274X, Excellon drill, pick-and-place (CPL) and a BOM. If a tool only offers its own project format, or a PDF, or an image of a board, your fab cannot build it. Ask for a sample output and open it in a free Gerber viewer before you trust it.
Where we standPCBEditor exports Gerber, Excellon drill, pick-and-place and BOM — the same file set you would send from any desktop EDA, with no export tier or paywall.
2.Can it generate fabrication-ready files, or just a picture of a board?
“Fabrication-ready” means a fab house can accept the output as-is: correct layer mapping, a drill file that matches the copper, and no approximated geometry. Many AI demos produce a convincing rendering with no manufacturable data underneath. The test is simple — send the output to a fab quote tool and see whether it parses.
Where we standThe board is built by a deterministic engine working in real units, so what you export is measured geometry rather than an approximation of one.
3.Can I run DRC in my own CAD tool afterwards?
This is the question that separates an open tool from a trap. You should be able to take the output into KiCad, Altium or your own flow and re-run design-rule checks independently. If a vendor's results can only be verified inside the vendor's own software, you have no way to audit them.
Where we standOutput is standard fabrication data, so you can re-check it in whatever tool you already trust. An AI result that cannot be independently verified is not a result.
4.Does it explain why it placed a component or picked a part?
Ask for the reasoning, not just the outcome. A tool that can say “this regulator because of the input range and thermal budget, this capacitor here because it is the supply pin” is one you can argue with and correct. A black box that emits a board gives you nothing to review — and reviewing is the whole job.
Where we standPart choice and intent come from a language model that states its reasoning, so you can read it, disagree with it, and change it before anything becomes copper.
5.Which AI router is best for BGA-heavy boards?
Be sceptical of any single answer here, including ours. Fine-pitch BGA work is the hardest case in autorouting: it needs escape routing before a general router can help, and it is where every tool is weakest. The right question to a vendor is not “can you do BGA” but “show me a BGA board you finished, and tell me which nets you could not route.”
Where we standDense fine-pitch parts are the area we are actively working on, and where you are most likely to see unrouted nets today. We would rather say that than claim otherwise.
6.What about DFM — will it actually manufacture?
Design for manufacturability is separate from design-rule checking. Ask whether the tool enforces your fab's real capabilities — minimum trace and space, annular ring, drill sizes — rather than generic defaults. Then confirm with your fab before a first run, every time, whoever produced the design.
Where we standRules are enforced during routing rather than flagged afterwards, and the checks run against the constraints for the board you are building — but confirming against your chosen fab's capability sheet is still the right final step.
7.Is the result reproducible?
Run the same design twice. If you get two different boards, the layout is coming from a language model, and it will keep drifting every time the model is updated. For hardware you want the same input to produce the same output, so that a review you did yesterday still describes the board you have today.
Where we standRouting is deterministic: same design in, same board out, and it does not change when the model behind the judgement half is swapped or upgraded.
The one thing every answer comes back to
Notice what the seven questions have in common: they all ask whether the physical part of the design is measured or asserted. A language model is good at judgement — which regulator, which topology, why this capacitor goes here. It has no way to measure whether a trace clears a pad by 0.15 mm, so anything that depends on measurement has to come from a deterministic engine instead. Tools that keep those two halves separate can answer these questions. Tools that ask one model to do both cannot.
Why an LLM cannot apply the physics →Run the checklist against us. Describe a board, export the Gerbers, open them in any viewer, and re-run DRC in your own tool — that is the whole point of answering these honestly.
Try PCBEditor free →