Tried And Tested: 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 I create the schematic diagram, I can easily transition to the layout-routing phase, adjusting the design while visualizing the final product. This smooth workflow saves me time and helps me keep everything organized without needing to switch between multiple tools or worry about integration issues.

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. It’s reassuring to know that my design is optimized for manufacturing before moving on to actual fabrication.

With the 3D flex-rigid design, I was able to visualize how the different layers of a PCB interacted, including both flexible and rigid parts. This was especially useful when testing 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 allowed me to quickly find what I needed. This feature reduces the need to manually design components from scratch, and I was able to use pre-validated parts that helped minimize errors. The wide selection made the process faster and more reliable, which is always a plus.

The biggest issue I faced 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 experienced noticeable slowdowns, especially when dealing with larger, more complex projects.

Trying to run multiple tools at once sometimes resulted in lag, which made the experience frustrating. For users with less powerful systems, this could really impact workflow and productivity.

Another pain point for me was adding footprints to devices. While Altium offers a large selection of footprints, the process felt a bit cumbersome. 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. 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 and a bit frustrating, especially when trying to work efficiently.

The learning curve is also something to keep in mind. Altium Designer is packed with features, which is great for experienced users but can be overwhelming for beginners like me. The interface is full of options, and it took me a significant amount of time to familiarize myself with all the tools.

What I dislike about Altium Designer:

• The system requirements for Altium Designer were challenging for me, as it requires a lot of memory and processing power. On less powerful computers, I experienced slowdowns and lag, which significantly impacted my workflow, especially with larger, more complex projects.
• Adding footprints to devices was a frustrating process for me. Navigating through multiple libraries and linking the footprint to the schematic symbol wasn’t straightforward, and I found myself spending extra time verifying everything was correct, which slowed me 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 the standout features of Altium 365 is its real-time collaboration capabilities. It helped me connect with circuit teams on the same designs simultaneously. Whether I was reviewing schematics or making PCB layout adjustments, it ensured everyone was on the same page. The platform’s version control system ensured that every change is tracked, which allowed me 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 I'm 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 really enjoyed working with the PCB layout editor. It’s incredibly customizable, which allows me to make adjustments to designs quickly and seamlessly. I really appreciated the ability to effortlessly transition between schematic and PCB. It saved me a lot of time, as I could quickly modify and export designs. For teams that need to integrate these changes into their larger platform-based projects, this feature would make the entire process much more efficient, particularly when rapid adjustments are required.

The 3D visualization feature was another area where Altium 365 impressed me. I was able to 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 me 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 me 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 faced was with setting up PCB routing rules. It required a bit of programming knowledge, which might not be beginner-friendly. While I eventually became proficient, 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 encountered was with the design rule system. Some custom queries didn’t work as expected, particularly when trying to set up rules to ignore interfering components. For example, I created a "component clearance" rule with specific settings for vertical and horizontal clearance, but the rule didn’t consistently ignore collisions. Despite prioritizing the rule correctly, it failed to work on some occasions, which was frustrating.

I also ran into an issue 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 precisely match track lengths, especially for impedance-controlled designs. This led to inaccuracies in the layout, requiring me to manually adjust and double-check certain areas.

On a few occasions, Altium 365 also experienced memory violation errors, which were a bit concerning given the software's complexity. While it worked well for most of my projects, larger and more complex designs caused the tool to slow down, especially when working over a network. This resulted in longer load times and delays in accessing files, which could be frustrating during tight project timelines.

Lastly, the Bill of Materials (BOM) feature took longer than expected to generate. Additionally, it needed to be updated every time I 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 encountered 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:

• The outdated GUI felt less engaging and lacked intuitiveness, making it harder for me 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, and a more streamlined approach would have saved me time and reduced frustration 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. 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 was the error correction system for schematic design. With its three-step process, it made ensuring schematic accuracy feel intuitive and straightforward. 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 me to catch and resolve issues both before and after the design phase, making the entire workflow more efficient and reliable.

The AI-based component automated the process of arranging elements on the PCB, saving me considerable time. This automation also ensured precise and optimized placements that would typically require meticulous manual adjustments. It felt like the tool was doing the heavy lifting, leaving me free to focus on other aspects of the design.

I was also impressed by Allegro’s flexible workspace, which allowed me to customize the interface, commands, and workflows to fit my personal preferences. This adaptability was a huge plus, as it made staying organized and productive much easier. Aligning the tool’s setup with my 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, I noticed 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 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. I had to use external tools to fill this gap, which added an extra step and some inconvenience.

Security concerns also stood out. The cadence.pcb files aren’t protected well 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, the learning curve felt unnecessarily steep, especially for those who aren’t familiar with Allegro’s scripting environment.

What I dislike about Allegro X PCB Designer:

• During my testing, I noticed 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 the absence of comprehensive DFM reports limiting. To fully assess my test designs for manufacturing readiness, I had to explore external tools, which added unnecessary 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 testing of Autodesk Fusion, I explored a variety of features, and it's clear that the software has a lot to offer manufacturing teams.

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 both simple parts and complex structures.

A feature I found particularly beneficial is manufacturing integration. Fusion allows designs to be taken directly through to production, which simplifies 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.

Fusion's simulation and analysis tools allow for simulations like stress tests and motion analysis, helping manufacturing teams test designs digitally before moving to production. By identifying potential issues, these tools saved me time, even as a beginner. 

One of the most innovative features I tested was generative design. This tool allows me to input design goals and constraints, and Fusion then generates multiple design options that meet 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, I did encounter a few challenges during testing. 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 encountered some difficulty was with 2D drawings. While Fusion does offer basic tools for creating 2D drawings from 3D models, I found that the options available for detailed 2D designs were limited. For more intricate drawings, I 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, I ran into some issues with file conversion when exporting designs. Despite Fusion supporting many file formats, I noticed that some intricate details and geometries were lost when the designs were imported into other software. This could be a problem for manufacturing teams that need precise, detailed designs preserved across different tools.

What I dislike about Autodesk Fusion:

• During my testing, I 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 encountered limitations with 2D drawings, where Fusion’s basic tools weren’t enough for creating detailed 2D representations. I had to export 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 testing Altium CircuitMaker, I can confidently say that this tool has a lot to offer, particularly for those working on circuit design. I found several features that really stood out, although I also encountered a few challenges along the way.

One of the features I appreciated the most was the cloud integration. This allowed me to store all designs securely in the cloud, making them accessible from anywhere. It was incredibly convenient, as I didn't have to worry about losing my work or managing storage space on my local machine. Additionally, the ability to collaborate easily with others 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. The cloud-based nature also means I didn't have to manually back up my files, which saved a significant amount of time.

Another feature that really made a difference was the Fusion 360 plugin. This plugin allowed me to effortlessly bridge the gap between electronic and mechanical designs. I could work on my 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 me hours of reworking and resolving alignment issues, ensuring that my electronic and mechanical designs aligned perfectly.

The 3D technology for visualizing schematics was also a game-changer. Seeing designs in 3D helped me understand how the circuits would interact once they were physically built. It provided me with a much clearer picture than traditional 2D views, and I was able to spot potential errors early on that might have been missed in a 2D environment.

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

The library that comes pre-loaded with Altium CircuitMaker is extensive and a real-time-saver. It includes a wide range of symbols, footprints, and 3D models, so I didn’t have to go hunting for parts. I could access not only the parts themselves but also important details like costing, inventory information, and even distributor suggestions. This made the design process much easier, especially when I didn’t have a pre-defined parts list. I could quickly pull up relevant components and start designing without wasting time on research or inventory checks.

However, there were some challenges. While the simulator model works well for basic simulations, I found that the accuracy wasn’t always reliable for more complex circuits. 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.

Another issue I faced was the inability to save my projects offline. Since the project file had to be stored in the cloud, I couldn’t work without an internet connection. This was particularly inconvenient when I was in an area with poor connectivity or when I just wanted the flexibility to work offline. While the cloud integration is great overall, I would have preferred the option to save projects locally for added flexibility and security.

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, I personally prefer more control over my projects. The community-driven aspect felt a bit limiting, and I would have liked more independence in how my work is shared or kept private. For those who enjoy working independently, this could be a deal-breaker.

Lastly, as a Linux and MacOS user, I found the experience less than ideal. Since CircuitMaker is primarily designed for Windows, I 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 encountered 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, I couldn’t work without an internet connection, which limited my 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 user language programs (ULP), the built-in programming language. It helped me save time by automating repetitive processes, which would be helpful when working on multiple designs or making frequent adjustments. I could create custom scripts tailored to my needs, giving me greater control over the workflow. For manufacturing teams looking to speed up production, this feature can be a real-time-saver.

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. It allowed me to generate quick prototypes and focus more on refining the core design rather than dealing with routing issues.

The tool worked smoothly for schematic capture, which is crucial in manufacturing for ensuring accuracy. It helped me spot potential issues early, 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 encountered was with the 3D visualizer. While functional, it didn’t offer the level of accuracy I 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 had 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 are essential for ensuring 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, forcing teams to explore alternative solutions or opt for more expensive versions of the software.

Lastly, I feel 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:

• I found the 3D visualizer to be a bit lacking in accuracy. It didn’t provide the level of precision I needed to visualize how the PCB would look once produced, which could lead to potential fitment issues in the manufacturing phase.
• I encountered issues with the net listing feature, particularly when 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 testing 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.