Tried And Evaluated: 7 Best PCB Design Software I Recommend

My top 7 best PCB design software recommendations for 2025

What I look for in PCB design software

The list below contains genuine user reviews from our best PCB design software category page. To qualify for inclusion in the category, a product must:

• Modify PCB layouts and PCB circuitry
• Include a components library so users can easily implement high-quality PCB footprints
• Provide schematic editing tools for modification of electrical properties and other attributes of components, wires, nets, and pins.

This data has been pulled from G2 in 2025. Some reviews have been edited for clarity.

1. Altium Designer

Altium Designer offers a unified platform that integrates different design tools, including schematic capture, layout routing, documentation, and simulation, into one environment. What I appreciate most is the ability to seamlessly move between these stages. For example, once someone creates the schematic diagram, they can easily transition to the layout-routing phase, adjusting the design while visualizing the final product. 

A feature that really impressed me is design for manufacturing (DFM). This ensures that designs are not only functional but also easy to produce. The DFM tools help identify potential issues early in the process, reducing errors and saving time during the production phase. Teams I worked with mentioned that it was reassuring for them to know that their design is optimized for manufacturing before moving on to actual fabrication.

With the 3D flex-rigid design, I observed that teams could visualize how the different layers of a PCB interacted, including both flexible and rigid parts. This was especially useful when working with more complex, multi-layered designs. I can see how seeing how each component interacts in 3D can give manufacturers better insight and help them make more informed decisions while routing the layout.

Its extensive component library offers a huge selection of parts, components, and templates, which allows teams to quickly find what they need. This feature reduces the need to manually design components from scratch, and teams can use pre-validated parts that help minimize errors. I observed how the wide selection makes the process faster and more reliable, which is always a plus.

The biggest issue I observed was the system requirements. Altium Designer requires a lot of memory and processing power. On high-end machines, the software runs smoothly, but on less powerful computers, I gathered from G2 reviews that there are noticeable slowdowns, especially when dealing with larger, more complex projects.

Another pain point for me was adding footprints to devices. While Altium offers many footprints, the process felt a bit cumbersome. I observed that finding the right footprint requires navigating through multiple libraries, and there isn’t a simple way to view all available options for a component in one place.

Linking the footprint to the schematic symbol also felt disjointed, as it wasn’t always clear if the correct one was selected. G2 users mentioned that there wasn’t an easy way to verify the accuracy of the footprint after it was added, which led to some extra steps to ensure everything was correctly aligned. I found this to be time-consuming, especially when trying to work efficiently.

I gathered from G2 reviews that the learning curve is also something to remember. Altium Designer is packed with features, which is great for experienced users but can be overwhelming for beginners. The interface is full of options, and in my observation, it takes a significant amount of time to familiarize yourself with all the tools.

What I dislike about Altium Designer:

• The system requirements for Altium Designer were challenging, as it requires a lot of memory and processing power. On less powerful computers, I can anticipate some slowdowns and lag, which can significantly impact the workflow, especially with larger, more complex projects.
• I observed that adding footprints to devices was a challenge. Navigating through multiple libraries and linking the footprint to the schematic symbol wasn’t simple, and I noticed that G2 users were spending extra time verifying everything was correct, which slowed them down.

What G2 users dislike about Altium Designer:

"One area for improvement is adding more features to the "Manufacturer Part Search." Additionally, navigating the software without a mouse can be challenging, especially when using a laptop. Right-clicking and dragging on a trackpad can be frustrating, though that’s partly due to the laptop design. Another suggestion relates to defining board size; for instance, when I needed a board that was exactly 50mm x 50mm, it was hard to draw precise lines. I ended up setting the grid size to 1mm and estimating the dimensions. It would be helpful to have a feature that displays the length of line drawings or the dimensions of the shapes being created."

- Altium Designer Review, Trevor M.

2. Altium 365

One of Altium 365's standout features is its real-time collaboration capabilities. From many G2 reviews, I observe that it has helped many circuit teams work on the same designs simultaneously. Whether reviewing schematics or making PCB layout adjustments, it ensured everyone was on the same page. The platform’s version control system ensures that every change is tracked, which allows teams to view revision histories or roll back to previous versions with ease.

It has highly efficient project management tools that have made handling complex designs much easier, especially when working on intricate designs. I found the process of creating and modifying components to be both intuitive and powerful, allowing for detailed work without feeling overwhelming. I can see how this flexibility would be a huge asset for teams, enabling them to manage large-scale projects with ease.

I’ve also gathered from G2 reviews how beginners enjoyed working with the PCB layout editor. It’s incredibly customizable, which allows teams to make adjustments to designs quickly and seamlessly. I really appreciated the ability to effortlessly transition between schematic and PCB. It could save teams a lot of time, as they can quickly modify and export designs. For teams that need to integrate these changes into their larger platform-based projects,  I believe that this feature would make the entire process much more efficient.

The 3D visualization feature was another area where Altium 365 impressed me. I could visualize how components fit on the board with ease, especially in tight spaces. The software’s support for .step 3D bodies made it straightforward to see how everything would fit together. What stood out was the 3D rendering speed – even when working with complex components, they rendered quickly without any noticeable lag. I found the "snap points" feature particularly useful, as it helped PCB teams position even the most awkward 3D bodies with great precision.

Lastly, the draftsman tool has been an absolute highlight. Generating high-quality assembly drawings was a breeze with just a few clicks. This tool allowed G2 users to create detailed and visually appealing drawings, which I could imagine would be very beneficial for manufacturing teams that need clear documentation for assembly.

However, despite these positive experiences, there are a few areas where I think Altium 365 could improve. One of the challenges I observed was with setting up PCB routing rules. It required a bit of programming knowledge, which might not be beginner-friendly. I could see how someone new to this type of design software might find this feature a bit tricky. A more user-friendly interface for setting these rules would certainly make the process smoother for beginners.

Another issue I came across was with the design rule system. Some custom queries didn’t work as expected, particularly when setting up rules to ignore interfering components. For example, when creating a "component clearance" rule with specific settings for vertical and horizontal clearance, the rule didn’t consistently ignore collisions. Despite prioritizing the rule correctly, it failed to work on some occasions. Such instances have been reported by many G2 users.

I noticed G2 users mention occasional issues with track length calculation. There were times when Altium seemed to ignore small segments of the track on certain layers, which could be problematic when trying to match track lengths precisely, especially for impedance-controlled designs. 

Lastly, G2 users reported that the Bill of Materials (BOM) feature took longer than expected to generate. Additionally, it needed to be updated every time a user made changes to the schematic, which added delays to the workflow, especially when working with frequent design revisions.

What I dislike about Altium 365:

• The setup of PCB routing rules required some programming knowledge, which wasn’t very beginner-friendly, making the learning curve steeper for new users. A more user-friendly interface for these rules would improve the experience for those just starting out.
• I came across issues with the design rule system. Custom queries sometimes didn’t work as expected, especially with component clearance rules, causing frustration when the rules failed to consistently prevent collisions.

What G2 users dislike about Altium 365:

"The software can be slow to start and access files, especially over a network. Some default settings, like the connection matrix, generate unnecessary warnings that make it harder to identify real issues. The Bill of Materials feature takes time to generate and requires updates when changes are made to the schematic. Additionally, the software slows down with larger designs, and while it integrates well with third-party components, occasional issues with mismatched footprints or symbol standards can arise."

- Altium 365 Review, Hemant A.

3. PADS Professional

What I dislike about PADS Professional:

• After analyzing many reviews, I concluded that the outdated GUI felt less engaging and lacked intuitiveness, making it harder for teams to navigate and fully enjoy the user experience compared to modern PCB design tools.
• Due to its complexity, setting up the tool initially was overwhelming for many G2 users. A more streamlined approach would save time during the onboarding process.

What G2 users dislike about PADS Professional:

"One downside of using PADS Professional is that it takes a significant amount of time to process and compute analyses, even for something as simple as the dashboard, which can be quite frustrating."

- PADS Professional Review, Souvik G.

4. Allegro X PCB Designer

I recently explored Allegro X PCB Designer, and I found it exceptional for creating CPU motherboards and working with high-density interconnect (HDI) PCB designs.

Its ability to develop compact, space-efficient electronics while maintaining advanced functionality is impressive. From G2 user reviews, I observed that the tool makes it possible to pack intricate components into smaller spaces, a feature that really stood out to me and felt like a significant advantage for modern electronics design.

One of my favorite features is the error correction system for schematic design. With its three-step process, it made ensuring schematic accuracy feel intuitive and simple for professionals. I noticed across multiple reviews that it flagged errors early, corrected them logically, and validated the results systematically, streamlining the design process and minimizing potential mistakes.

I also appreciated the pre-analysis and post-analysis capabilities, which allowed users to catch and resolve issues both before and after the design phase, making the entire workflow more efficient and reliable.

I was also impressed by Allegro’s flexible workspace, This adaptability was a huge plus for PCB management teams, as it made staying organized and productive much easier. Aligning the tool’s setup with design habits felt like a great way to improve efficiency and comfort.

However, the long load times, especially during resource-heavy operations, were frustrating. Whether it was starting the application, creating library symbols, or working with components, Many users on G2 point out a significant lag. This issue became particularly noticeable when handling multiple 3D models or board mapping, which took much longer than expected and felt like a bottleneck in the workflow.

Another limitation I observed from G2 reviews was the lack of comprehensive design for manufacturing (DFM) reports. While the tool excels at creating PCBs, it doesn’t generate the detailed DFM reports needed to ensure a design is ready for manufacturing.

Security concerns also stood out. PCB files aren’t well protected and can be easily reverse-engineered. For those working with sensitive designs, this lack of robust security could pose significant risks.

Additionally, the absence of a direct VBScript interface means users might need to learn a new scripting language exclusive to Allegro. While this might be beneficial for advanced customization, multiple reviewers mention struggles with the learning curve, especially those who aren’t familiar with Allegro’s scripting environment.

What I dislike about Allegro X PCB Designer:

• During my evaluation of many G2 reviews, I noticed users report significant delays when performing resource-heavy tasks like handling 3D models or board mapping. These long load times made the workflow feel less efficient.
• I found that the users mentioned that the absence of comprehensive DFM reports is limiting. To fully assess test designs for manufacturing readiness, they had to explore external tools, which added complexity.

What G2 users dislike about Allegro X PCB Designer:

"The software needs to be backward compatible with older revisions. It requires switching between different toolsets, and the entire workflow isn't easily integrated. STEP export files don't work well with SolidWorks, and managing libraries and variants can be difficult."

- Allegro X PCB Designer Review, Vijay P.

5. Autodesk Fusion

During my evaluation of Autodesk Fusion, one aspect that stood out to me was the 3D design and modeling tools. These tools are incredibly powerful and allow for the creation of simple parts and complex structures.

Users often commend manufacturing integration. Fusion allows designs to be taken directly through to production, simplifying the process. Instead of switching between multiple platforms for design and manufacturing, everything is consolidated in one place. For manufacturing teams, this feature is invaluable as it reduces the chances of errors and ensures all parts of the process are streamlined.

One of the most innovative features I evaluated was generative design. This tool allowed G2 users to input design goals and constraints, and Fusion then generated multiple design options that met those criteria. For manufacturing teams, this can be incredibly useful for exploring new design possibilities and optimizing efficiency, as the software suggests design alternatives that might not have been considered otherwise.

However, Assemblies in Fusion can be difficult to manage, especially when dealing with larger designs. Organizing and navigating through the different parts can become cumbersome, and it can be hard to quickly locate specific components when adjustments are needed. 

Another area where I came across some difficulty was with 2D drawings. While Fusion does offer basic tools for creating 2D drawings from 3D models, I gathered from many G2 reviews that the options available for detailed 2D designs were limited. For more intricate drawings, they had to export the design to AutoCAD to take advantage of more advanced tools. This lack of flexibility in the 2D tools could be improved for manufacturing teams that need detailed and complex 2D representations.

Finally, many users mentioned in reviews that they ran into some issues with file conversion when exporting designs. Despite Fusion supporting many file formats, users saw that some intricate details and geometries were lost when the designs were imported into other software. I foresee this to be a problem for manufacturing teams that need precise, detailed designs preserved across different tools.

What I dislike about Autodesk Fusion:

• During my evaluation, I noticed many G2 reviewers found it challenging to manage assemblies, especially with larger designs. Organizing and navigating through parts became cumbersome, and locating specific components quickly was difficult.
• I came across limitations with 2D drawings, where Fusion’s basic tools weren’t enough for creating detailed 2D representations. G2 users mentioned exporting designs to AutoCAD for more advanced options, which added an extra step to the process.

What G2 users dislike about Autodesk Fusion:

"Two aspects of Autodesk Fusion 360 that I find less favorable are its reliance on an internet connection and its CAD file compatibility. While being cloud-based offers significant benefits, features like real-time collaboration and automatic saving can be challenging in areas with limited connectivity. Additionally, although Fusion 360 supports many file formats, the conversion process during export is often limited, leading to the loss of details or geometries when importing files into other software."

- Autodesk Fusion Review, Juan M.

6. Altium CircuitMaker

After evaluating Altium CircuitMaker, I can confidently say that this tool has a lot to offer, particularly for those working on circuit design. 

One of the features I appreciated the most was the cloud integration. This allowed teams to store all designs securely in the cloud, making them accessible from anywhere. It was incredibly convenient, as they didn't have to worry about losing their work or managing storage space on my local machine.

Additionally, the ability to collaborate easily with others I think is a huge plus. Whether you're working remotely or on a team-based project, this cloud feature makes it seamless to share and work on designs together. 

I also noticed many users mention that the Fusion 360 plugin made a real difference. This plugin allowed teams to effortlessly bridge the gap between electronic and mechanical designs. They could work on circuit design in CircuitMaker and then seamlessly move to Fusion 360 to tweak the mechanical components or vice versa. This fluid integration between the two platforms saved them hours of reworking and resolving alignment issues, ensuring that their electronic and mechanical designs aligned perfectly.

I also gathered that the 3D technology for visualizing schematics was a game-changer. Seeing designs in 3D helped them understand how the circuits would interact once they were physically built. It provided a much clearer picture than the traditional 2D view.

I also really appreciated the ability to easily assign properties to components. Adding comments or specific attributes to parts helped teams stay organized and keep track of changes throughout the design process. It was particularly useful for leaving reminders about certain design decisions or specific parts, ensuring nothing was overlooked.

However, there were some challenges. While the simulator model works well for basic simulations, I found reviews mention that the accuracy wasn’t always reliable for more complex circuits. Users reported that the simulations sometimes didn’t accurately reflect real-world behavior, which made me question whether some of the designs would function as expected once built. This could be problematic for more intricate designs where precise behavior is essential.

While the cloud integration worked really well, I observed in many reviews the inability to save projects offline. Since the project file had to be stored in the cloud, teams couldn’t work without an internet connection. This would particularly be inconvenient when the user was in an area with poor connectivity. 

Furthermore, I found the heavy reliance on community sharing to be a bit of a drawback. While the idea of sharing work with a large user base might be appealing to some, according to G2 reviews, many users prefer more control over their projects. 

Lastly, I observed that Linux and MacOS users found the experience less than ideal. Since CircuitMaker is primarily designed for Windows, they had to set up a virtual machine to run the software. While it worked fine within the virtual machine, it added an extra layer of complexity to the setup. It wasn't as seamless as using a native application, and I could see how this could be frustrating for users outside of the Windows ecosystem.

What I dislike about Altium CircuitMaker:

• I observed issues with simulation accuracy for complex circuits. The simulator sometimes didn’t accurately reflect real-world behavior, which raised concerns about the reliability of designs for more intricate projects.
• The inability to save projects offline was a major inconvenience. Since the files had to be stored in the cloud, many users reported that they couldn’t work without an internet connection, which limited flexibility in certain situations.

What G2 users dislike about Altium CircuitMaker:

"CircuitMaker enforces cloud saving and allows only two private projects, which can be limiting. The community component library is unmoderated, containing many unusable footprints (though it's recommended to create your own, as the component wizard makes it easy). The software can be somewhat unstable, so saving frequently is important. Additionally, the keyboard shortcuts differ from those in Altium Designer, which may take some time to adjust to."

- Altium CircuitMaker Review, Alberto V.

7. Autodesk EAGLE

One feature of Autodesk EAGLE that stood out to me almost immediately was the built-in user language programs (ULP). Many users mention how it helps them save time by automating repetitive processes, which is helpful when working on multiple designs or making frequent adjustments. 

The autoroute function is another tool that simplifies the design process. In a manufacturing context, where time is critical, the ability to quickly route paths with minimal manual effort was invaluable. I observed that it allowed users to generate quick prototypes and focus more on refining the core design rather than dealing with routing issues.

By reading many reviews, I gathered that the tool reportedly worked smoothly for schematic capture, which is crucial in manufacturing for ensuring accuracy. It helped spot potential issues early in PCB workflows, reducing the likelihood of errors during production.

On the library management side, Autodesk EAGLE impressed me with its extensive selection of pre-loaded CAD packages. This meant less time spent searching for components, allowing for faster assembly and prototyping in manufacturing.

One downside I observed was with the 3D visualizer. While functional, it didn’t offer the level of accuracy many users expected when visualizing how a PCB would look once produced. In manufacturing, this level of precision is essential to ensure everything fits together correctly, and EAGLE's 3D tool didn’t quite meet those expectations.

I also found user report issues with the net listing feature, especially when working with complex power PCBs. It didn’t always function as expected, which led to delays and potential errors in the design phase. Reliable net listings ensure proper electrical connections in the final product.

Another limitation was the restriction in the downloaded version of EAGLE, which limits designs to just two layers. This becomes an issue when working with more complex, multi-layer boards. For manufacturing teams working on high-density designs, this restriction can cause delays. I see such a delay forcing teams to explore alternative solutions or opt for more expensive software versions.

Lastly, I found that G2 reviewers frequently highlight that routing intelligence could be improved. Currently, EAGLE uses standard routing paths, but integrating AI-based routing algorithms would significantly improve efficiency. This would result in more compact, optimized designs, speed up production times, and minimize routing-related errors.

What I dislike about Autodesk EAGLE:

• Many reviews highlighted that the 3D visualizer was a bit lacking in accuracy. It didn’t provide the level of precision teams needed to visualize how the PCB would look once produced, which could lead to potential fitment issues in the manufacturing phase.
• I came across issues with the net listing feature, particularly reported by users working with complex power PCBs. It didn’t always work as expected, which caused delays and could have led to errors in ensuring proper electrical connections for the final product.

What G2 users dislike about Autodesk EAGLE:

"The system’s session timeout is quite restrictive, as the platform prompts session expiration after a short period. It would be helpful if there were an option to extend the session duration, giving users more flexibility to complete tasks without the concern of losing their progress." 

- Autodesk EAGLE Review, Aryan K.

Best PCB design software: frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Q. How do I design a PCB?

To design a PCB, start by creating a schematic diagram that outlines the circuit components and their connections. Then, use PCB design software to convert the schematic into a PCB layout, placing components and routing the traces. After completing the layout, generate the necessary files for manufacturing, such as Gerber files, and ensure design rules and electrical constraints are met.

Q. Can I design a PCB on mobile?

Yes, some PCB design apps are available for mobile devices, though they tend to have fewer features compared to desktop versions. These mobile apps are suitable for basic design tasks and simple projects, but for more complex designs that require advanced functionality, desktop software is recommended due to its greater precision and comprehensive toolsets

Q. How do I learn PCB design?

You can learn PCB design through online courses, tutorials, and books that cover electronics and circuit design. Begin by understanding basic concepts like circuit schematics and component placement, and then practice using free PCB design software. Start with simple circuits to build your skills before progressing to more complex projects. Engaging with online forums or communities can provide valuable feedback and guidance, helping you gain confidence before using advanced design tools.

Q. How do I choose the right PCB layout design for my project?

Choosing the right PCB layout design depends on factors like the project’s size, complexity, and required functionality. Consider the number of layers, the type of components used, thermal management, and signal integrity. For high-speed circuits, pay special attention to routing and grounding. Additionally, ensure the layout meets any industry-specific requirements (e.g., automotive or medical standards).

Q. Which is the best free PCB design software?

Most high-quality PCB design software tools are paid, but many offer free trials to help you get started. Altium Designer, for example, is widely regarded as one of the best tools in the industry, offering powerful features for complex designs. Its free trial can be a good starting point. Explore more free PCB design software that offers basic features, which can be useful for simpler projects or beginners.

Keep things grounded

Choosing the right PCB design software can be a game-changer for your projects. When evaluating these tools, it’s essential to consider factors like usability, performance, and features that best align with your specific needs—whether that’s handling complex designs, improving signal integrity, or ensuring smooth collaboration.

Based on my evaluation and user feedback, I’ve outlined the top tools that offer the best combination of efficiency, flexibility, and power. The best tool is the one that works for you and helps you bring your PCB designs to life without any hiccups.

Don’t be afraid to dive in, experiment with different options, and see what clicks. Remember, even the most sophisticated software can’t help if you don’t press the right buttons (unless you’ve got a “design wizard” on your team, in which case, please share their contact info with me).

Reduce errors by using simulation and test suites before moving your PCB design to production.