Benchmarks

Verified efficiency data across thousands of real production jobs.

82%
DFF-optimal
82% of real production jobs reach the provable cutting lower bound — the minimum boards physically possible for that job
<2s
Typical calculation
Most beam-saw jobs complete in under 2 seconds. Extended budgets (up to 150 s) unlock additional optimisation passes
2,083
Jobs benchmarked
Efficiency is measured across 2,083 real customer jobs — not synthetic test cases

Competitor benchmarks

Nine real-world benchmarks run against each tool with identical inputs: same parts, same stock dimensions, same kerf. Results show boards required to fit all parts — fewer boards means less material waste. Times measured end-to-end including network round-trips where applicable.

Benchmark SC Fast SC Max MagiCut Opticutter CutList Optimizer
9 parts2400 × 2000 mm 2 boards0.1 s 2 boards0.1 s 2 boards 2 boards2.6 s 2 boards27.6 s
10 parts2400 × 2000 mm 1 board76 ms 1 board85 ms 1 board 1 board2.6 s 1 board8.3 s
20 parts2400 × 2000 mm 2 boards0.2 s 1 board38.5 s 2 boards 1 board8.3 s 1 board103 s
22 parts2400 × 2000 mm 2 boards0.3 s 2 boards0.3 s 2 boards 2 boards10.5 s 2 boards95.9 s
39 parts7 shapes · 2800 × 2050 mm 2 boards0.4 s 2 boards32.4 s 1 board 2 boards11 s 2 boards121 s
60 parts2785 × 2055 mm 10 boards0.5 s 9 boards1.0 s 9 boards 10 boards4.5 s 10 boards122 s
96 parts6 shapes · 2400 × 2000 mm 5 boards0.7 s 5 boards47.8 s 4 boards 5 boards12.9 s 5 boards122 s
160 parts4 shapes · 2785 × 2055 mm 5 boards1.2 s 4 boards29.3 s 4 boards 5 boards28.9 s 5 boards122 s
256 parts2785 × 2055 mm 14 boards2.7 s 13 boards50.2 s 13 boards 14 boards24 s —

SmartCut Fast completes in under 3 seconds on all nine jobs — 10–100× faster than web-based tools. SmartCut Max matches or beats MagiCut on 7 of 9 benchmarks — including a single-board solution on the 20-part job the others miss — and beats Opticutter and CutList Optimizer on every job where the tools differ. MagiCut is a Windows desktop application, so its timing isn't directly comparable (board counts use the same saw input format). CutList Optimizer returns results on 8 of 9 benchmarks; the 256-part job exceeds its part limit, and it hits an internal ~2-minute ceiling on larger jobs regardless of budget.

Fast vs Max

Fast mode returns a result in under 3 seconds and is right for most jobs. Max mode (150 s budget) runs deeper search passes and recovers material on larger jobs. Across 147 large production jobs, Max saves 59 boards versus Fast — a consistent gain at the recommended budget. Returns diminish sharply above 150 s.

Layout visualisations

Static layouts from the benchmark suite. Colours distinguish part families within each job.

160-part job 4 boards (Max) · 2785 × 2055 mm · 4 part families · SmartCut Max · ~20 s
Board 1 — 96%
Board 2 — 96%
Board 3 — 95%
Board 4 — 91%

All 160 parts packed onto four boards at up to 96% density — one fewer board than Opticutter and CutList Optimizer. Fast mode returns in 1.2 s; Max mode finds the tighter four-board layout in around 20 s.

96-part job 2400 × 2000 mm · 6 part families · SmartCut Fast · 0.7 s
Board 1 — 96%
Board 2 — 96%
Board 3 — 95%
Board 4 — 95%

Six part families across 96 pieces on 2400 × 2000 mm stock, every board packed edge to edge. SmartCut Fast returns the full layout in 0.7 seconds.

How we measure

"DFF-optimal" means a job's result matches the Dual First-Fit lower bound — a provably tight floor on the minimum number of boards required by any packing algorithm. When SmartCut reaches DFF for a job, no algorithm anywhere can do better on that input.

Measured across 2,083 real beam-saw jobs: 82% hit the DFF floor outright. The remaining 18% are jobs where the geometry leaves a genuine gap — typically very large panels, unusual aspect ratios, or head-cut-heavy patterns — not algorithm inefficiency.

Versus commercial tools

SmartCut's beam algorithm is benchmarked against industry tools including MagiCut, Ardis, Opticutter, and CutList Optimizer, using identically configured jobs, sheet sizes, kerf widths and trim margins.

Identical input parameters on every comparison — same sheet, same kerf, same trim
Results validated against industry CNC output files on real saw hardware
2,083 real customer jobs as the baseline — not cherry-picked samples
API docs

Typical beam-saw job

Under 2 seconds

150 s budget for the hardest cases

Try it

SmartCut is available via a REST API. Submit a job, get a layout — no installation.

Read the docs View plans

Benchmark FAQ

How is cutting optimization efficiency measured?

We measure against the Dual First-Fit (DFF) lower bound — a provably tight floor on the minimum number of boards any algorithm could use for a given job. When a result matches the DFF floor, no tool anywhere can do better on that input. Across 2,083 real jobs, SmartCut reaches it on 82%.

How does SmartCut compare to MagiCut, Opticutter and CutList Optimizer?

On nine real benchmarks with identical inputs, SmartCut Max matches or beats MagiCut on 7 of 9 jobs and beats Opticutter and CutList Optimizer on every job where the tools differ — while returning results 10–100× faster than web-based tools.

How fast is the optimization?

Most beam-saw jobs finish in under two seconds in Fast mode. Max mode uses a larger budget (150 seconds by default) to recover extra material on the hardest jobs.

Are the benchmarks based on real jobs?

Yes — efficiency is measured across 2,083 real customer jobs, not synthetic test cases, and every competitor comparison uses the same parts, stock and kerf.