garment.dev

Garment.dev is a browser-based patternmaking workspace for apparel professionals who want drafting, grading and production documentation together. It is most compelling for patternmakers and small teams coordinating those tasks; invitation-only alpha access and the lack of an audit report make it a cautious choice for production-critical operations.

Overview

The workspace brings patterns together with construction specifications, people, moodboards, tech packs and bills of materials. That breadth can keep design and production work connected instead of scattered across separate tools. The trade-off is maturity: Garment.dev is in open alpha, access is by invitation, and it has no public API yet.

Key features

Pattern tools cover pen and trace editing, linked edits, darts, pleats, fullness, seam walking, seam allowance and photo digitization. X/Y grading rules and validation reports support size development, while marker layouts can account for orientation, selvedge and nap. Together, these tools address more of the pattern-to-production workflow than drafting alone.

Garment.dev imports and exports DXF-AAMA/ASTM, an interchange format used by Gerber AccuMark, CLO3D, Optitex and StyleCAD. The company says it checks releases against 34 production files from major CAD systems, a useful compatibility signal for teams moving work between systems. Collaboration includes roles, shared boards, live editing, follow mode, comments and read-only mobile review.

Accounts use passkeys, and imported files are parsed in sandboxed WebAssembly workers with published resource limits. Data moves over TLS, storage is encrypted at rest, and backups are encrypted before leaving Garment Development and are write-once. These protections do not substitute for independent assurance: Garment.dev says it has no SOC 2, ISO 27001 or other audit report.

Pricing

The free Hobby plan costs nothing and is a narrow way to try the workflow: it allows 2 patterns, 1 tech pack, 1 moodboard, 1 marker, 720p export, 14 days of history, 50 checkpoints and 1 editor, with unlimited viewers and commenters. It suits an individual exploring the product, but the small library and single-editor cap constrain ongoing work.

Individual costs $16.20 a month, billed for 12 months. It raises the caps to 8 patterns, 8 tech packs, 3 moodboards and 3 markers, and adds full-resolution export, private patterns and Arch 36×48 printing; history is 30 days with 100 checkpoints. It fits a solo professional who needs those capabilities, but still has fixed library and marker limits.

Production costs $24.30 a month, billed for 12 months. It removes library, moodboard and marker caps, adds approved snapshots and auto-nest, supports every plotter size, and includes unlimited history, 500 checkpoints and up to 4 editors. This is the clearest fit for a small production team, though the editor ceiling matters as collaboration grows.

Studio is sold by conversation at $45 a month, billed yearly, with a two-person minimum. It adds a Studio-owned library, named roles and approvals, per-pattern permissions and team audit. Its minimum makes it a poor fit for a solo user, but the ownership and governance features target teams that need more structured control.

Platforms

Garment.dev runs in a browser, which avoids a desktop-platform requirement. Read-only mobile review is available for collaborators, but the core product is described as browser-based.

Who it's for

Choose Garment.dev if patternmaking, grading, markers and tech packs need to live in a shared workspace, particularly for a solo patternmaker or a small team. Look elsewhere if access must be immediate, an API is essential, or procurement requires an independent security audit.

Pros and cons

• Pro: Pattern editing, grading, marker constraints and production DXF work sit alongside tech packs and bills of materials, reducing workflow fragmentation.
• Pro: DXF-AAMA/ASTM import and export plus the stated checks against 34 production files give teams a concrete interoperability basis.
• Pro: Live collaboration, role controls and mobile read-only review support shared work without making every participant an editor.
• Con: Invitation-only alpha access makes adoption less predictable, and the product has no public API.
• Con: No SOC 2, ISO 27001 or other audit report may disqualify it for organizations with formal assurance requirements.
• Con: Hobby and Individual caps limit patterns, markers or editor capacity; Production allows at most 4 editors.

Alternatives

Seamly2D is a free, open-source option for users who want a desktop tool on Linux, macOS or Windows rather than an invitation-only browser workspace.

Valentina is worth considering for users who prefer a free desktop option with source code access and community support, while accepting that its free plan has no current binaries, manual or developer support.

PatternMaker suits Windows users who want a free viewer for pre-made patterns, or a one-time Deluxe Editor purchase rather than Garment.dev's recurring plans.

Browzwear VStitcher is an alternative for readers comparing paid apparel software with freelancer plans and desktop support across macOS and Windows.

Style3D Studio is another option for readers seeking desktop software, with a free non-commercial plan that allows 30 downloadable assets per week.

Futura Next is a paid Windows alternative for readers evaluating production software from Caledonia Group.

Gerber AccuMark is a paid Windows alternative for readers considering a standalone CAD system named as using DXF-AAMA/ASTM interchange.

Marvelous Designer is a paid alternative for users who need Linux, macOS or Windows support and prefer a personal monthly subscription.

Browse Fashion Design Software for more options.

Verdict

Garment.dev is a strong candidate for patternmakers and small apparel teams that want pattern development, production documentation and collaboration in one browser workspace. Its combined workflow is the main reason to choose it; invitation-only alpha access and the absence of independent audit reports are the main reasons to wait or look elsewhere when reliability and formal assurance are prerequisites.