# BIMobject vs Cadenas vs NBS Chorus for an architecture firm: which gives the best balance of manufacturer coverage and Revit integration?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">BIMobject vs Cadenas vs NBS Chorus for an architecture firm: which gives the best balance of manufacturer coverage and Revit integration? From the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/bim-objects">BIM objects</a> category, here is what reviews and platform data show:</p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Note: Cadenas and NBS Chorus do not currently have dedicated G2 listing data comparable to BIMobject, so this comparison draws on available MCP data for BIMobject and NBS National BIM Library, along with what is known about each platform's positioning.</p><ol>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/bimobject/reviews"><strong>BIMobject</strong></a><strong> (4.4 stars):</strong> Best for firms that need broad international manufacturer coverage in one place. Reviewers describe thousands of Revit families across architectural, structural, and MEP categories, with the ability to search by manufacturer name and filter by file format. The Revit plug-in and desktop app extend the platform into the modeling workflow rather than keeping it purely web-based. The search can return irrelevant results without careful filtering, and not every product has an RVT file available. For an architecture firm doing varied project types with different product specifications each time, the breadth is the main argument.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/nbs-national-bim-library/reviews"><strong>NBS National BIM Library</strong></a><strong> (3.8 stars):</strong> Best for UK-based firms where NBS specification data is part of the deliverable alongside BIM objects. The platform integrates BIM content with NBS specification clauses, enabling the object and the specification to travel together rather than being sourced separately. For international work or firms outside the UK, the coverage is more limited. G2 review data is thin, so the score should be taken cautiously.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/sellers/cadenas-partsolutions"><strong>Cadenas (PARTsolutions / eCATALOGsolutions):</strong></a> Best for firms with more complex product configuration needs, particularly in engineering and manufacturing contexts where component configurators matter. The platform is stronger in the engineering and industrial product space than in general architectural content. For an architecture firm primarily specifying building products for construction documents, the fit is narrower.</li>
</ol><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Which of these have you used for actual project work, and what was the gap that sent you to a different platform?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 3 months ago
- Author title: Writer
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: rgb(0, 0, 0);&quot;&gt;For day-to-day use, BIMobject&#39;s plug-in extending directly into the Revit workflow, instead of staying a separate web library you copy from, is the detail I&#39;d weight most. Not breaking flow to go find and import a family separately adds up over a real project.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 16 days ago
- Author title: Marketing



### Comment 2

&lt;p&gt;For a general architecture practice, BIMobject feels like the strongest balance because the manufacturer breadth is hard to beat and the Revit workflow is reasonably direct. NBS becomes more compelling when specification integration matters as much as the object library itself, especially on UK projects.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 19 days ago
- Author title: Marketer



### Comment 3

&lt;p&gt;Worth adding what to do when that answer varies by project, which for a lot of firms it does. Running one as primary and one as fallback is fine. What causes trouble is ending up with two objects for the same product carrying different parameter names. Deciding which library wins for a given product type, rather than for a given project, keeps naming consistent across the office.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 19 days ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant



### Comment 4

The tiebreaker here isn&#39;t coverage, it&#39;s what your contract makes you deliver. If written specifications are a contractual deliverable, the NBS linkage between object and spec clause is the thing the other two can&#39;t replicate, and it outweighs a bigger catalog. If you deliver models and drawings but specs live elsewhere, that linkage is worth little and breadth wins. And Cadenas only really enters the picture when you&#39;re placing configured engineering components rather than picking catalog products. Same category page, three different jobs. Deciding which job is yours first makes the comparison mostly resolve itself.

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 3 months ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4