Home / Compare / TestFit vs Autodesk Forma Site Design
TestFit vs Autodesk Forma Site Design
Two early-stage site planning tools that both generate layout options with AI: TestFit leans toward real estate feasibility, parking and earthwork takeoffs; Forma Site Design leans toward massing and environmental analysis feeding Revit. Vendor-published facts only.
Side by side
| Sheet row | TestFit | Autodesk Forma Site Design |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Site feasibility & generative design | Site planning, massing & environmental analysis |
| AI role (our label) | AI features added to established product | AI features added to established product |
| What it does | Real estate feasibility platform that starts from what the vendor calls an AI-generated site plan you can edit: parcel mapping, road layout, turning radii, topography, parking automation, 2D/3D massing, a pro forma synced to the layout, and automatic takeoffs for parking, infrastructure, and earthwork (including cut and fill). Generative design and an MCP connection are on Site Solver. Exports to Revit, AutoCAD, SketchUp, Excel, and PDF. Vendor cites 6,200+ users (vendor claim). | Cloud software for site planning and analysis, described by Autodesk as AI-powered. Site context from the Forma Data Marketplace (terrain, buildings, roads), terrain editing with pad volume and mass balance insights, 3D massing, and an AI-powered Site Automation tool that generates and compares layout options, plus housing, parking, line-building and floor-plan/unit tools. Analyses include sun hours, daylight, wind and noise (each with a rapid machine-learning prediction mode and a detailed simulation mode), microclimate, solar energy, shadow, view and total carbon (US hubs). Forma Board handles design review tied to Revit sheets; AI rendering is included with render limits. Proposals go to Revit as a geolocated native model; IFC/OBJ import and Dynamo and Rhino connections are listed. Autodesk says Forma Site Design replaced Spacemaker, whose subscribers were migrated. A customer quote on the page cites a 60-hour design done in 4 hours (customer claim, not verified). |
| Who it's for | Developers, architects, contractors, and civil engineers on the deal team. | Anyone in pre-design and schematic design: architects, urban planners and real estate developers (vendor wording). Terrain mass-balance insights are pitched at early cost estimation. |
| Pricing (as publicly stated) | Parking Solver $195/month billed monthly (unlimited users; Pro Forma add-on +$170/mo). Site Solver from $15,000/year billed annually (adds generative design, MCP, dedicated onboarding). Site Solver Portfolio from $20,000/year. (Checked Oct 14, 2026.) | Product page headline says "Starting at $59 / month"; the same page's FAQ lists $85 monthly, $700 annually, or $2,100 for 3 years, and says it is also included in the AEC Collection ($460 monthly, $3,675 annually, or $11,030 for 3 years). Free trial offered. We report both figures as published. (Checked Oct 15, 2026.) |
| Test status | Not tested. No scores. | Not tested. No scores. |
| Vendor links | ||
| Sources |
Facts last checked: TestFit Oct 14, 2026; Autodesk Forma Site Design Oct 15, 2026. Prices change; check the vendor page before relying on them.
Where the vendor descriptions differ
- Starting point: TestFit starts from what it calls an AI-generated site plan you edit, with parcel mapping, roads, turning radii and parking automation. Forma Site Design lists an AI-powered Site Automation tool that generates and compares layout options, plus housing, parking and line-building tools.
- Earthwork: TestFit lists automatic takeoffs for parking, infrastructure and earthwork, including cut and fill. Forma lists terrain editing with pad volume and mass balance insights for early cost estimation.
- Analysis: Forma lists sun, daylight, wind, noise, microclimate, solar, shadow, view and total carbon analyses, with rapid machine-learning predictions for wind and noise. TestFit lists a pro forma synced to the layout.
- Outputs: TestFit exports to Revit, AutoCAD, SketchUp, Excel and PDF. Forma sends proposals to Revit as a geolocated native model and lists IFC/OBJ, Dynamo and Rhino connections.
- Pricing: TestFit lists Parking Solver at $195/month and Site Solver from $15,000/year. Autodesk's product page says starting at $59/month while its FAQ lists $85 monthly or $700 annually; Forma is also in the AEC Collection.
Paraphrased from the sources listed above. Vendor claims are reported as claims.
What we can't tell you yet
Which tool is better for your work. That needs testing on the same package with a verified answer key. Planned measures for this comparison:
- Cut/fill and pad quantities against a civil engineer's grading model on the same parcel
- Which zoning and parcel data each uses in New Jersey and other markets
- Outside Means & Methods Lab's current benchmark scope.
See the methodology and leaderboard status.
Related
- Category hub: AI design, site planning & engineering tools
- Compare: Togal.AI vs Kreo
- Compare: HCSS HeavyBid vs B2W Estimate
- Compare: AGTEK vs Trimble Business Center
- Compare: Document Crunch vs Provision
- Compare: Nomic vs Buildcheck vs InspectMind
- Compare: Exayard vs Togal.AI
- Compare: Beam AI vs Civils.ai
- Compare: Downtobid vs BuildingConnected
- Compare: Bluebeam Max vs Nomic
- Compare: STACK vs Handoff AI
- Compare: Countfire vs Exayard
- Compare: ALICE vs nPlan
- Compare: OpenSpace vs Buildots
- Compare: PlanHub vs ConstructConnect
- Compare: Trunk Tools vs Provision
- Compare: Doxel vs Buildots
- Compare: Kreo vs Exayard
- Compare: Handoff AI vs Beam AI
- Compare: ALICE vs Karmen
- Compare: nPlan vs SmartPM
- Compare: Part3 vs AutoSpecs
- Compare: Firmus vs Buildcheck
- Compare: Propeller vs AGTEK
- Compare: SitesAI Estimate vs Foreman AI
- Compare: DESTINI Estimator vs Ediphi
- Compare: viAct vs Intenseye
- Compare: Tenna vs Trackunit
- Compare: Tenna vs Tenderd
- Compare: Bedrock Robotics vs Gravis Robotics
- Compare: One Click LCA vs EC3
- Compare: HammerTech vs WakeCap
- Compare: MaintainX vs Brightly
- Compare: Raken vs CompanyCam
- Compare: Fieldwire vs PlanRadar
- Compare: Outbuild vs Planera
- Compare: Voxel vs Intenseye
- Compare: DroneDeploy vs Propeller
- Compare: Track3D vs Buildots
- Compare: Cintoo vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: viAct vs Voxel
- Compare: Civils.ai vs Exayard
- Compare: Togal.AI vs STACK
- Compare: Karmen vs Planera
- Compare: Outbuild vs SmartPM
- Compare: WakeCap vs viAct
- Compare: Samsara vs Tenna
- Compare: Built Robotics vs Bedrock Robotics
- Compare: OpenSpace vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: Reconstruct vs OpenSpace
- Compare: Procore AI vs Autodesk Assistant
- Compare: Dodge One vs ConstructConnect
- Compare: Shovels vs Dodge One
- Compare: C.Scale vs One Click LCA
- Compare: Trayd vs Miter
- Compare: Riskcast vs Raken
- Compare: Pelles AI vs Trunk Tools
- Compare: Kwant.ai vs WakeCap
- Compare: Skydio vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: Matterport vs Cintoo
- Compare: Reconstruct vs Track3D
- Compare: CivCheck vs CodeComply.AI
- Compare: PermitFlow vs GreenLite
- Compare: Civ Robotics vs Dusty Robotics
- Compare: Okibo vs KEWAZO
- Compare: Rebar vs Countfire
- Compare: Rebar vs Pelles AI
- Compare: Davis AI vs TestFit
- Compare: TraceAir vs TestFit
- Compare: Trendspek vs ConeLabs
- Compare: Citylogix vs Trendspek
- Compare: Voliro vs Skydio
- Compare: SmartPM vs Document Crunch
- Compare: SewerAI vs ITpipes
- Compare: Exodigo vs GroundedAI
- Compare: Sitewire vs Built Technologies
- Compare: Converge vs Giatec
- Compare: Cloud Cycle vs Giatec MixPilot
- Compare: CivilGrid vs Exodigo
- Compare: OneCrew vs HCSS HeavyBid
- Compare: All3 vs Reframe Systems
- Compare: Reds10 vs All3
- Compare: Reframe Systems vs Reds10
- Compare: Foldcast vs Strong by Form
- Compare: Steelray Delay Analyzer vs SmartPM
- Compare: Nodes & Links vs Foresight
- Compare: First Rule vs Document Crunch
- Compare: First Rule vs Provision
- Compare: Procore Resource Planning (LaborChart) vs Bridgit
- Compare: Assignar vs Procore Resource Planning
- Compare: HammerTech vs SafetyClerk
- Compare: Eyrus vs Kwant.ai
- Compare: Field Materials vs Kojo
- Compare: ProcurePro vs Field Materials
- Compare: Tread vs Curri
- Compare: Parspec vs Andercore
- Compare: Snaptrude vs Arcol
- Compare: Autodesk Forma Site Design vs Arcol
- Compare: SWAPP vs Augmenta
- Compare: Facilio vs Willow
- Compare: UpKeep vs MaintainX
- Compare: BrainBox AI vs Willow
- Compare: Verdigris vs BrainBox AI
Means & Methods Lab has no commercial relationship with any vendor on this page. Rankings and placement are never for sale. See how we make money.