Softwr

Manufacturing · head to head

Authentise vs CoreTechnologie

Authentise logo

Authentise

Manufacturing

Modular MES and workflow automation for additive manufacturing, with ITAR-capable deployment options

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
CoreTechnologie logo

CoreTechnologie

CAD

CAD format conversion, validation and additive build preparation from a German independent

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Authentise nothing is published about price, and modular licensing means the quoted entry module rarely resembles the cost of a configuration that actually runs a production floor.; CoreTechnologie no pricing is published and the vendor sells through direct and regional channels, so there is no list price to anchor a negotiation and quotes differ by territory.
  • They diverge on capability: Authentise covers Additive workflow automation, CoreTechnologie covers Native CAD conversion.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Authentise and CoreTechnologie actually diverge.

Attributes where Authentise and CoreTechnologie differ
AttributeAuthentiseCoreTechnologie
PlatformsWeb, APIWindows, Linux
CategoryManufacturingCAD

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Authentise

  • Additive workflow automation
  • Machine data capture
  • Traceability
  • Modular deployment
  • ITAR-capable hosting
  • Scheduling

Only in CoreTechnologie

  • Native CAD conversion
  • Automatic geometry healing
  • Feature recognition
  • Simplification and defeaturing
  • Batch and server conversion
  • 3D_Analyzer
  • 4D_Additive B-rep printing

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Authentise

  • An additive service bureau tracking jobs across a mixed fleet of printers from several vendorsnot CoreTechnologie
  • An aerospace supplier that needs powder batch to part traceability as qualification evidencenot CoreTechnologie
  • A defence programme requiring export-controlled geometry handled under ITAR-compliant hostingnot CoreTechnologie
  • A corporate additive team standardising build preparation and post-processing steps across sitesnot CoreTechnologie

CoreTechnologie

  • A tier supplier that receives CATIA from one customer and NX from another and must work in SolidWorksnot Authentise
  • A company migrating a CAD library off one platform and needing feature-recognised, editable models rather than dumb solidsnot Authentise
  • Preparing additive builds from exact B-rep geometry where STL faceting would lose the tolerance you neednot Authentise
  • Giving purchasing and manufacturing staff a viewer with real analysis without buying them CAD seatsnot Authentise

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Authentise

  • Nothing is published about price, and modular licensing means the quoted entry module rarely resembles the cost of a configuration that actually runs a production floor.
  • It is additive-specific, so a shop with significant machining, casting or fabrication work still needs a second MES and an integration between them.
  • The ITAR-capable deployment that justifies the price is irrelevant to purely commercial shops, which then find the system expensive relative to general manufacturing software.
  • Integrating with the ERP and PLM systems that already hold part and order data is project work, and the burden falls on a small vendor rather than a large systems integrator ecosystem.
  • Company scale is modest against the industrial software incumbents, which is a real consideration for a system sitting in the traceability path of qualified aerospace parts.

CoreTechnologie

  • No pricing is published and the vendor sells through direct and regional channels, so there is no list price to anchor a negotiation and quotes differ by territory.
  • Licensing is granular by format read and write pair, so the price you were quoted covers the translations you named and adding a customer with a different CAD platform later means going back for another line item.
  • It is a small independent vendor, so a buyer standardising a critical migration pipeline on it should weigh the concentration risk and check the support arrangement in their own region rather than assume global coverage.
  • Feature recognition on converted geometry works well on prismatic machined parts and much less well on complex freeform surfaces, so the rebuilt-as-editable claim needs testing on your own worst parts, not on a demo model.
  • 4D_Additive competes with entrenched incumbents such as Magics in industrial AM, so machine-side Build Processor support and bureau familiarity are thinner, which matters if you need your service provider to accept the output.

Pricing, plan by plan

Authentise

On request
  • Authentise Flows and MES modules$undefined/year
    • Modular licensing by function
    • Public cloud, private SaaS or ITAR-compliant deployment
    • Machine data capture and traceability

CoreTechnologie

On request
  • 3D_Evolution$undefined/year
    • Native CAD conversion across around 36 formats
    • Automatic healing and feature recognition
    • Simplification and defeaturing
  • 3D_Analyzer$undefined/year
    • Cross-format viewing and measurement
    • Wall thickness, draft and collision analysis
    • Model comparison
  • 4D_Additive$undefined/year
    • B-rep based build preparation
    • Texturing, nesting and lattice structures
    • Automatic part analysis for printability

Which should you pick?

Choose Authentise if

  • You need additive workflow automation.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want machine data capture.
Authentise review

Choose CoreTechnologie if

  • You need native cad conversion.
  • You work on Windows, Linux.
  • You also want automatic geometry healing.
CoreTechnologie review

Questions people ask

Is Authentise or CoreTechnologie better?
Neither clearly leads. Authentise starts at On request and CoreTechnologie at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Authentise or CoreTechnologie?
Authentise starts at On request and CoreTechnologie at On request.
Does Authentise or CoreTechnologie run on more platforms?
Authentise runs on Web, API. CoreTechnologie runs on Windows, Linux.
What is Authentise best used for?
Authentise is most often used for an additive service bureau tracking jobs across a mixed fleet of printers from several vendors, an aerospace supplier that needs powder batch to part traceability as qualification evidence, a defence programme requiring export-controlled geometry handled under itar-compliant hosting, a corporate additive team standardising build preparation and post-processing steps across sites. Of those, an additive service bureau tracking jobs across a mixed fleet of printers from several vendors and an aerospace supplier that needs powder batch to part traceability as qualification evidence are not what CoreTechnologie is typically brought in for.
What can Authentise do that CoreTechnologie cannot?
Authentise covers Additive workflow automation, Machine data capture, Traceability, Modular deployment. CoreTechnologie covers Native CAD conversion, Automatic geometry healing, Feature recognition, Simplification and defeaturing.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Authentise: How is Authentise priced?

It is not published. Licensing is modular and quoted annually, with integration and onboarding priced separately.

CoreTechnologie: Is CoreTechnologie owned by a CAD vendor?

No. It is an independent German company, which is the main reason it appears in supply chains that must move data between competing CAD platforms.

Authentise: Can it handle ITAR-controlled work?

Yes. It offers ITAR-compliant deployment alongside public cloud and private SaaS, which is a primary reason defence suppliers choose it.

CoreTechnologie: Does conversion produce editable models?

3D_Evolution has feature recognition that rebuilds parametric features from solids. It is reliable on prismatic machined geometry and weaker on complex freeform surfaces, so test it on your hardest parts.

Authentise: Does it work with printers from more than one manufacturer?

Yes. It is designed for mixed fleets and captures machine data across vendors, which single-vendor software will not do.

CoreTechnologie: What makes 4D_Additive different from a normal slicer?

It prepares builds on exact B-rep geometry rather than converting to STL first, so tolerance and surface accuracy are not lost to faceting before printing.

Authentise: Is it a full MES for a general machine shop?

No. It is built around additive workflows; subtractive-heavy shops need a general MES as well.

CoreTechnologie: Can it run unattended for large migrations?

Yes. Batch and server conversion is designed for high-volume migration and PLM pipeline use rather than desk-by-desk conversion.

Share

Related pages

More on Authentise

More on CoreTechnologie

Keep looking

Other head to heads