Alternative to
Lapas vs SigmaNEST - which should you use?
These two are not really competing for the same job. SigmaNEST is an enterprise platform you buy after a sales process; Lapas is a nester you can be running in about a minute. It is worth being clear about which problem you actually have.
The short answer
Use SigmaNEST if nesting is one part of a bigger problem: machine-specific post processors, shop floor scheduling, inventory and remnant tracking, ERP or MES integration across a plant. Lapas keeps plate and remnant stock of its own but connects it to no scheduling, ERP or MES, and touches none of the rest. Use Lapas if the problem is genuinely "arrange these parts on a sheet without wasting material". You will be nesting today rather than after a quote, a demo and an implementation, and you can compare the layouts on your own files for free before deciding whether SigmaNEST is worth its price.
- You want to nest a real job today, not after a sales process
- You want to see the price before you talk to anyone
- Nesting is the problem, not plant-wide production management
- You are on macOS or Linux, or you want it on any machine in the shop
- You want to benchmark a nest against your current output before committing budget
- You need validated post processors for specific named machines
- Nesting has to feed scheduling, inventory and remnant tracking
- You need ERP or MES integration across a plant
- You run several cutting technologies and want one platform over all of them
- You have a procurement process that expects a vendor with 25 years behind it
SigmaNEST facts checked against sigmanest.com in July 2026.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Lapas | SigmaNEST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published pricing | SigmaNEST is quote-only | ||
| Free plan | |||
| Self-serve trial, no sales call | |||
| Runs in the browser | SigmaNEST is Windows desktop | ||
| macOS / Linux | |||
| DXF import | |||
| True-shape nesting | |||
| Machine-specific post processors | SigmaNEST wins clearly | ||
| ERP / MES integration | SigmaNEST wins clearly | ||
| Inventory & remnant tracking | Lapas keeps its own stock; nothing reaches an ERP | ||
| Shop floor scheduling | SigmaNEST wins clearly | ||
| Multi-process CAM in one platform | |||
| Published benchmark data | Raw JSON/CSV, CC BY 4.0 | ||
| Time from signup to first nest | ~1 min | Sales cycle |
Where SigmaNEST genuinely wins
Worth saying plainly, because most comparison pages will not.
- It is a production system, not a nester
Nesting, CAM, scheduling, inventory, remnant tracking and ERP integration in one platform. If those are your actual requirements, Lapas does not compete and should not be on your shortlist.
- Post processors that are known to work
Validated output for specific named machines, built and supported over decades. Lapas exports DXF for you to post yourself, and its G-code export is beta and unvalidated across controllers. On a plant floor that difference is the whole argument.
- Breadth of process coverage
Laser, plasma, waterjet, punch, tube and more in a single system with one operator training path. Lapas does 2D sheet nesting and nothing else.
- It will outlast us
Twenty-five years of development and a support organisation to match. Lapas is young, and for some procurement processes that is a legitimate reason to rule it out.
How the nesting itself compares
SigmaNEST is licensed enterprise software with no public build, so there is no way to run it headless against a fixed instance set and publish the result. Nobody can honestly show you that comparison, including us. What is published is Lapas Core v1.1 against deepnest-next v1.5.6 across 37 cases, scored by an independent program. It says something about the Lapas engine; it says nothing about SigmaNEST.
Every number is recomputed from the output geometry by a scorer that is not part of either engine, and the raw JSON and CSV are published under CC BY 4.0 so you can check them or rerun the cases yourself. The ties are in there on purpose.
See the full benchmarkMoving a job from SigmaNEST to Lapas
- 1
This is usually not a migration. If SigmaNEST is doing scheduling and ERP work for you, keep it.
- 2
Where Lapas does fit alongside it: quoting. Nest a prospective job in the browser, get the sheet count and utilization, and price the job before it is committed to production.
- 3
Export the parts as DXF from whatever CAD you already feed SigmaNEST, and upload them.
- 4
Set sheet size and part spacing, run the nest, and compare the plate count against what your current setup produces on the same parts.
- 5
Export the PDF report for the quote. If the numbers are close, that is useful information about your current setup; if they are not, that is useful too.
Common questions
We do not know, and neither does anyone outside their sales process. SigmaNEST publishes no price list: pricing is by quote and depends on modules, seats and licence type. Figures circulate on third-party review sites, but they are those sites' estimates rather than a vendor figure, so this page does not repeat them. Ask SigmaNEST for a quote and compare it against a published price.
There is no public self-serve trial or free tier. Evaluation goes through their sales process.
For most shops running SigmaNEST, no, and it would be dishonest to say otherwise. SigmaNEST covers post processors, scheduling and ERP integration that Lapas does not have; Lapas keeps plate and remnant stock of its own but writes it into nothing else. Lapas replaces the nesting step specifically, and it is a real alternative if nesting is all you actually needed.
Yes, with no credit card and no expiry: unlimited nesting and re-nesting, no cap on parts per job, and the full nesting engine. The free plan includes 5 project exports a month in any format. Pro removes the export cap at $49 a month, or $39 a month billed annually, and the price is on the pricing page rather than behind a quote.
Not reliably, and we would rather say so. Lapas exports the nested layout as DXF for you to post from the CAM software you already use. G-code export exists but is beta and has not been validated across controllers. If you need proven machine output, that is exactly what an enterprise CAM package is for.
More comparisons: all alternatives, or start nesting at lapas.io.
Don't take our word for it.
Upload one of your own DXF files and see the layout yourself. It's free and takes about two minutes.
On a phone? Book a 20-minute call and we nest your file with you on a screen share.
No credit card · No install · Your files stay yours
Free · 20 minutes · No commitment