Many controls engineering teams still rely on plain AutoCAD® for electrical design—not because it’s ideal, but because it’s familiar. Over time, that familiarity can mask inefficiencies that quietly slow projects down, increase error risk, and make revisions harder than they need to be.
To better understand the real impact of tool choice, an independent productivity study was conducted comparing plain AutoCAD and AutoCAD Electrical’s productivity across common controls design tasks. The results were striking. When performing the same electrical design activities, Autodesk users completed tasks 80–95% faster on average using AutoCAD Electrical. These weren’t edge cases or advanced workflows—they were everyday tasks that controls engineers perform on nearly every project.
This article breaks down what the study measured, why the productivity gap exists, and what the findings mean for controls teams evaluating whether AutoCAD Electrical is worth the investment.
How the Productivity Study Was Conducted
The Autodesk productivity study was designed to compare plain AutoCAD and AutoCAD Electrical as fairly as possible. An independent consultant performed a series of tests using the same hardware, the same user, and the same sample projects. The goal was not to showcase advanced features, but to measure how efficiently each tool handled common electrical design work.
The study evaluated 10 typical controls engineering tasks, including:
- Inserting and modifying electrical symbols
- Retagging circuits and wire numbers
- Managing cross-references across drawings
- Creating PLC I/O documentation
- Generating bills of materials and reports
- Symbol insertion and wiring, where smart symbols automatically connect, align, and break wires
- Wire numbering and component tagging, which update automatically across drawings
- Cross-referencing, where parent-child relationships between coils and contacts are maintained without manual tracking
For each task, the study tracked the number of commands used, the number of user interactions (clicks and keystrokes), and the total time required to complete the work in both environments. By holding variables constant, the results highlighted differences caused by the software itself—not user skill or workflow choices.
Where the Biggest Productivity Gains Came From
The study consistently showed that AutoCAD Electrical outperformed plain AutoCAD because it eliminates manual coordination work. In a generic CAD environment, electrical intelligence has to live in the engineer’s head. Tags, wire numbers, and relationships must be tracked, updated, and verified by hand.
AutoCAD Electrical automates much of that coordination. Productivity gains were especially strong in areas such as:
In one example from the study, retagging a copied circuit required dozens of manual edits in plain AutoCAD. The same task in AutoCAD Electrical was completed with a fraction of the interactions, resulting in time savings of more than 80%. Across the full set of tasks, the reduction in manual commands directly translated into faster completion times and fewer opportunities for error.
Why Plain AutoCAD Falls Behind at Scale
Plain AutoCAD can handle basic drafting, but it was never designed to manage electrical relationships across large, evolving projects. As drawing counts increase and revisions become more frequent, the effort required to keep everything aligned grows exponentially.
The study highlighted a key difference: AutoCAD Electrical reduced the total number of commands used by roughly two-thirds across tasks. Fewer commands mean fewer chances to miss a step, mislabel a component, or forget an update. Over the life of a project—or across dozens of projects—that difference adds up quickly.
This is why many teams feel fine using plain AutoCAD on small jobs but struggle as project complexity increases. The tools simply aren’t built to scale with modern controls engineering demands.
What the Study Means for Controls Engineering Teams
The takeaway from the productivity study is not that plain AutoCAD is “bad,” but that it places an increasing burden on engineers as projects grow. AutoCAD Electrical shifts that burden to the software, allowing engineers to focus on design intent rather than manual coordination.
For teams evaluating AutoCAD Electrical, the 80–95% productivity range provides a realistic benchmark—an indication of where time savings come from when electrical intelligence and automation are fully utilized.
How Hagerman & Company Helps Teams Apply These Findings
Understanding the potential of AutoCAD Electrical’s ROI is only the first step. Real-world results depend on how the software is implemented, standardized, and adopted by your team. Without the right setup and workflows, it’s easy to underutilize the very features that drive the biggest gains.
Hagerman & Company helps controls engineering teams bridge that gap. As an Autodesk Platinum Partner, Hagerman works with organizations to evaluate current workflows, implement AutoCAD Electrical effectively, migrate legacy data, and establish standards that support long-term efficiency. The goal isn’t just faster drawing, it’s a controls engineering environment that scales with your business.
If you’re considering AutoCAD Electrical or want to better understand how these productivity gains apply to your organization, Hagerman’s controls engineering team can help you turn study results into measurable improvements. Contact us today!
Comments