Should Cost Analysis Software: Top Tools Compared (2026)

If you are evaluating should cost analysis software, you already know the problem: supplier quotes arrive with little cost justification, negotiations are uneven, and the cost models that exist live in spreadsheets that are slow to update and hard to review.

The right tool can change that, but only if it fits how your team works. The wrong one can mean months of set-up for software that does not match your parts, your processes or your suppliers.

This guide explains how to evaluate should-cost software, then describes five tools and approaches in a neutral way. Emithran makes one of the products discussed here, should-cost and costing software for parts and BOMs. The others are described only from public vendor pages and trade sources, listed at the end with the date we checked them. If you are new to the topic, start with what should-cost analysis is.

What should-cost software does

A should-cost model estimates what a part or assembly should cost to make, built up from its inputs (material, process, labour, overhead, tooling and margin) instead of taken from a supplier’s quote. The value is the comparison: when a quote and the model differ, the gap can be examined by cost element and turned into specific questions for the supplier.

Products in this space take different routes to that estimate. Some start from a 3D CAD model, some from a drawing or part description, some from a bill of materials and supplier quotes, and some from an estimator’s own process plan. That difference matters more than any feature list.

How to Evaluate Should Cost Analysis Software

Use the criteria below to compare any tool, including ours. Each one is a question to put to every vendor and to test on your own parts.

1. Costing methodology — Is the estimate built bottom-up from material, process, labour and overhead, or derived from historical prices or analogies? Can you see how every number was produced?
2. Material, process and rate assumptions — Which manufacturing processes are covered, and how are labour rates, machine rates, energy and material prices sourced and kept current for the countries you buy from? Can you edit an assumption and see the result change?
3. Inputs required — Does the tool need a finished 3D model, or can it work from a drawing, a part description or a BOM line? What happens for parts with no clean CAD model?
4. BOM support — Can you cost a multi-level assembly and roll the result up, or only one part at a time?
5. Supplier-quote validation — Can you load a quote and see the difference by cost element, not just in total? Does the output help you prepare a negotiation?
6. Transparency of cost breakdowns — Is the breakdown shown per operation, in a form engineers can review and you can share with a supplier?
7. Fit to your workflow — Who will use it (design, cost engineering, sourcing, or a supplier estimating its own jobs)? Which PLM, ERP and CAD connections are native, and which need custom work? How is your data handled?
8. Set-up effort and total cost — What do licences, implementation, training, data updates and support cost, and how long does a pilot take? Get answers in writing rather than relying on category assumptions.

Five Tools and Approaches at a Glance

The table summarises public descriptions, not a feature-by-feature scoring. We have not marked any tool as better or worse, because that depends on your parts, processes and suppliers.

aPriori

According to Built In, aPriori was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts. Its platform is described there as combining product cost management, design for manufacturability and sustainability, and supplier collaboration, with more than 450 manufacturing process simulations and more than 80 regional economic models. A 2011 DEVELOP3D review, which predates later versions of the product, describes a CAD-driven approach in which the 3D model is the main input.

Worth checking:

• How much set-up and specialist time the tool needs, and what you do for parts or assemblies without a clean CAD model.
• Whether the regional rate data covers the countries and processes you actually buy from.
• Which PLM, ERP and CAD connections are native, confirmed in writing.

Costimator (MTI Systems)

MTI Systems describes Costimator as cost estimating and quoting software designed for manufacturing, used for product costing and process planning. Its page groups the product under machining, sheet metal fabrication, and should-cost and quoting, names machine shops and sheet metal fabricators as users, and says its cost models calculate cycle times and costs across a range of processes. It also says the product integrates with many ERP systems and exports estimate data to XML files for use in other applications.

The same page does not state the deployment model (desktop or cloud), whether whole BOMs or assemblies are supported, or how CAD files are handled. Those are the points to put to MTI if they matter to you.

Worth checking:

• Whether the should-cost offering fits a buyer-side workflow or mainly an estimator’s quoting workflow.
• How rates and process standards are maintained, and who edits them.
• What can be exported from your version, and in which formats.

FACTON EPC Suite

FACTON is described by its owner as a German-based provider of enterprise product costing software for manufacturers and suppliers. In January 2021 it was acquired by FOG Software Group, an operating group of Vela Software and Constellation Software. FACTON describes the EPC Suite as supporting cost management across the product life cycle, and its Should Costing module as aimed at purchasing teams, with integrated benchmark data and a Cost Model Designer for building digital cost models.

Worth checking:

• How the should-costing module relates to the wider product costing suite, and which parts you would actually license.
• Implementation approach and who typically carries it out.
• Which regions and processes the benchmark data covers.

DFMA (Boothroyd Dewhurst)

Boothroyd Dewhurst says its should-costing software lets teams create their own should-cost estimates instead of relying only on supplier quotes, based on material costs, cycle times and manufacturing process logic. It lists design engineering, manufacturing engineering, cost engineering and engineering leadership as users, offers a Global Costing Data add-on for comparing regions, and says DFMA does not need a finished 3D model to begin a cost analysis.

Worth checking:

• How much input each analysis needs, and how results are carried across many parts or a full BOM.
• Which regions and processes the costing data covers, and how often it is updated.
• How outputs are shared with sourcing teams and suppliers.

Emithran

Emithran builds bottom-up should-cost models for individual parts and multi-level BOMs from a drawing, CAD file or part description. It shows a supplier’s quote beside the model, the gap by cost element and a suggested target price, and can compare locations (India, Germany, the UK, the USA, China, Mexico and Turkey) on delivered cost. It ships with India-native labour, material and supplier data, and combines should-cost with BOM management and supplier intelligence on one platform. See the Emithran should-cost analysis software page for the details.

Emithran currently supports CNC machining, stamping, casting (sand, die and investment), injection moulding, sheet metal fabrication, roll forming, welded assemblies and PCB assembly, with forging, extrusion and additive manufacturing being added. Its process coverage is narrower than the largest CAD-driven libraries, so test your own parts before you decide.

Worth checking:

• That your processes, materials and regions are covered today, not just planned.
• Which PLM, ERP and CAD connections you need, and how they work in practice.
• How the quote-gap output fits your negotiation process.

Which Approach Fits Which Need

How to Run a Fair Pilot

1. Pick a small set of parts — Include different processes and at least a few parts where you already know the real cost, such as parts you make or have long quote history on.
2. Give every tool the same inputs — The same drawings, volumes and locations, so differences come from the tool and not the data.
3. Compare assumptions, not just totals — Look at cycle times, rates, yield and overhead for each operation, and check which ones you can edit.
4. Load a real supplier quote — See whether the gap by cost element gives you something you can use in a negotiation.
5. Record the effort — Note the set-up time, the specialist help needed and the manual steps for each tool.
6. Get integration answers in writing — Ask each vendor which PLM, ERP and CAD connections are native.

Sources and how we checked

Competitor details in this article come only from the public pages below, checked on 13 October 2026. Vendors change products, packaging and pricing, so confirm current details with each vendor before you decide. If you spot something out of date, tell us and we will correct it.

• Built In: aPriori company profile (founding year, headquarters, platform description, process and regional model counts)
• DEVELOP3D: aPriori 2011 review (how the CAD-driven approach works; an independent review from 2011, so the product has since changed)
• MTI Systems: Costimator (product description, processes, should-cost and quoting, ERP integration and export; deployment model, BOM support and CAD integration are not stated on that page)
• FACTON: EPC Suite (cost estimates across the product life cycle)
• FACTON: EPC Should Costing (purchasing focus, benchmark data, Cost Model Designer)
• FOG Software Group: FACTON acquisition announcement (ownership, January 2021, German-based, EPC Suite)
• Boothroyd Dewhurst: DFMA (should-costing description, users, Global Costing Data add-on)
• Boothroyd Dewhurst: DFMA should-costing blog (does not need a finished 3D model)