This research was commissioned by Render 3D Quick and should be read in that context.
In January 2026, Render 3D Quick engaged an external researcher to conduct competitive market research following a predefined inquiry methodology, looking at how architectural visualization companies discovered in AI / LLM search tools for the phrase “Who is the best 3D rendering company?” responded to a standardized project brief. This market research was commissioned to explore standard industry practices for criteria we have found to be important to our clients, including quote responsiveness, estimated project cost and estimated turn around time to first draft.
The research examined 21 companies, including Render 3D Quick, surfaced in responses from ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini and AI Mode, Microsoft Copilot, and Perplexity at the time the research was conducted.
This article presents those findings as a point-in-time comparison of recorded interactions rather than an industry ranking or certification of service quality.
Each company identified was sent the same architectural rendering project brief, structured to reflect a typical request from a potential client. The research did not assess creative quality or technical capability. It documented whether and how companies responded to that inquiry, what information they chose to provide, and the timelines communicated during that exchange, as well as looking at public signals of work volume and customer satisfaction such as review counts and aggregate review scores.
Render 3D Quick performed favorably relative to other companies in the sample on several recorded factors.
This research does not represent the full architectural visualization industry. It reflects a limited sample of companies that appeared in certain LLM / AI-generated search results at the time of sampling and also documents publicly accessible customer satisfaction signals for those companies.
The sections below present recorded and summarized observations.
How the Research Was Conducted
The purpose of the research was to understand how companies that appeared in AI-generated / LLM responses for the query “Who is the best 3D rendering company?” handled an initial project inquiry and their perceived work volume and level of customer satisfaction via publicly accessible review counts and aggregated review scores. The exercise was not intended to evaluate service quality, rank providers, or simulate a formal procurement process. It simply recorded what information was publicly available or voluntarily provided in reply to the same request.
Each firm received the same email inquiry containing project plans and a defined scope representative of a common rendering request, the type of request we receive every day from architects, developers, builders, home owners and real estate professionals. The research relied only on written replies and did not pursue phone calls, meetings, or additional follow-up beyond what companies chose to provide via email.
For basic consistency when describing timing across time zones, reply intervals were referenced to New York business hours. This was used only as a descriptive convention and does not reflect how any company actually operates.
Elapsed time was calculated only within New York working hours, considered to be 9am to 5pm. Time occurring overnight, on weekends, or outside the business-day window was excluded.
Only information that was publicly visible or provided directly in responses was recorded. No attempt was made to verify internal operations, capacity, or project outcomes.
Subjective factors such as artistic style, portfolio aesthetics, software workflows, or industry awards were intentionally excluded so the research is easier to compare for people viewing it.
This article should be understood as a piece of commissioned market research reflecting a single inquiry scenario. Different clients, project types, timelines, or communication approaches could produce entirely different interactions.
January-February 2026 Competitive Market Research Results
Research window: Two weeks from initial contact
Currency normalization: USD where pricing was provided
Project scope: One exterior view, two interior views, two 3D floor plans
Communication channel: Email-based request only
The table below includes the research results recorded during the competitive research.
The information in the table reflects only directly observable interaction outcomes and publicly visible market signals. No qualitative assessment of artistic style, portfolio quality, or design merit was performed.
The table summarizes information that was publicly available or voluntarily provided in response to a project inquiry. It reflects a single outreach exercise and is presented for transparency rather than as an endorsement or formal comparison.
All values reflect observations captured during January and February 2026.
The table is sorted by the Public Review Count column in descending order. Scroll horizontally to see the full table.
| Company Contacted | Public Review Count | Average Review Rating | Approximate Response Time After Receiving Project Brief | Estimated Project Cost (USD) | Estimated First Draft Turnaround Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Render3DQuick | 879 (Google) | 4.9 | ≤15 min | $1,495 | 3 days |
| CAD Crowd | 170 (Trust Pilot)15 (G2) | 4.74.9 | 3–6 h | $1,500 | Not specified |
| Bella Staging | 96 (Google)3 (Houzz) | 5.05.0 | 15–30 min | $2,200 | 7 days |
| Yantram Studio | 31 (Facebook)4 (Google)6 (Houzz)3 (Homify)1 (Zillow) | 86% recommend5.04.75.05.0 | 3–6 h | $650 | 4 days |
| Arktek 3D | 38 (Trust Index)4 (Facebook) | 5.0 | 3–6 h | $1,500 | 1 day |
| NoTriangle Studio | 40 (Google) | 5.0 | 3–6 h | $2,250 | Not specified |
| Applet3D | 25 (Google)2 (FB) | 4.9 | 3–6 h | $2,350 | 5 days |
| RealSpace 3D | 20 (Google)5 (Houzz)2 (Facebook) | 5.05.05.0 | 30–60 min | $2,689 | 3 days |
| 7CGI | 10 (Google)2 (Clutch)1 (Design Rush) | 5.04.54.3 | >12 h | $1,000 | 1 day |
| Omega Render | 12 (Facebook) | 94% recommend | 3–6 h | $6,000 | 3 days |
| Neoscape | 5 (Google) | 4.0 | 6–12 h | $10,000 | Not specified |
This information reflects what was available during the research period only. It should not be interpreted as a complete representation of any company’s services, pricing structure, or responsiveness under different circumstances.
Review Data Source Note:
Review counts and aggregate ratings were collected from Google Business profiles, Houzz and other publicly visible review platforms where available. Social media pages and third party review sites were recorded if they could be clearly attributed to the same business. Reviews across multiple platforms were aggregated. Reviews from employee review sites such as Glassdoor were not included.
Pricing Interpretation Note:
Pricing shared in response to inquiries is presented with the understanding that it was provided voluntarily and without confidentiality restrictions.
Some pricing figures represent preliminary estimates or budget ranges provided in response to the standardized request. Certain firms indicated that a formal quotation would require additional project documentation, scope confirmation, or a consultation prior to issuing a finalized proposal. The values presented therefore reflect the figures supplied during the research interaction and should be interpreted as indicative responses within that defined request scenario rather than binding quotations or estimates.
Summarized Research Observations
Review Count
Approximate Response Time
Estimated Project Cost
Observations From the Research
The research produced a range of reply styles, levels of detail, and turnaround indications. The notes below summarize what was observed from companies in response to the same project brief and are included to provide context about how companies chose to engage during this specific interaction.
1) Render 3D Quick Performed well in many Areas of the Research
Within this dataset, Render 3D Quick performed well in a number of aspects including:
High publicly visible review volume relative to other companies in the sample with a 4.9 out of 5 aggregate review score.
Fastest quote turnaround under the standardized workflow
Competitive project pricing for the defined deliverable scope, providing the lowest price estimate out of companies based in North America.
This result reflects the research scenario and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of performance across all project types or workflows.
Note: For the standardized project scope used in this research, several lower-priced estimates were provided by firms headquartered outside North America. Among firms headquartered in North America that supplied directly comparable written quotes for this request, Render 3D Quick returned the lowest total project price within the research.
2) Quote Accessibility and completeness Was a Major Separator
A meaningful portion of firms in the AI-surfaced sample did not provide a comparable estimate under the standardized workflow.
Out of 21 firms:
only 13 provided a pricing estimate within the research window under the standardized request conditions.
out of the 13 companies that provided pricing estimates, 2 firms only provided partial estimates that did not cover all the views requested in the full project brief
5 firms did not respond to a request for quote
2 firms required a phone call meeting or consultation before a price estimate could be provided
1 company discovered in LLM responses had a non-responsive website during the entire 2-week research window
The ability to obtain written pricing information varied. In several cases, companies indicated that estimates are normally prepared after a call, meeting, or additional documentation review. This reflects differing intake processes rather than a uniform quoting method across providers.
Non-response to quote requests could have occurred for a number of reasons, including:
emails going to spam
lack of project suitability
company being too busy
company staff on holiday etc.
Non-response was recorded as an observable outcome only, with no inference drawn about business quality or reliability.
Companies who did not provide an estimate, or who only provided a partial estimate were not included in this article.
3) Response Behavior Varied Even Among Widely Mentioned Firms
Reply timing differed significantly across companies. Some responses arrived within the same business day, while others came later in the observation period. Timing references reflect only this outreach instance and should not be interpreted as typical service levels.
4) Pricing Comparability Was Limited by Quote Structure
Where project pricing was provided, cost can be compared only across quotes that covered the full standardized deliverable scope.
Where pricing was shared, formats and scope descriptions were not always structured the same way. Some companies provided full-project estimates, while others only quoted for part of the requested services or indicated that they were providing a preliminary figure only and that additional scoping would be required before preparing a detailed quotation.
5) Review Signals Were Treated as Market Validation, Not Creative Judgement
Public review counts and ratings were included as indicators of market activity and customer feedback volume and satisfaction. They were noted as part of the publicly available information associated with each company. These figures were recorded as contextual data and were not analyzed as indicators of creative quality or project outcomes.
Market Research Scope and Limitations
This competitive market research reflects interaction outcomes recorded during a single standardized procurement scenario. It was exploratory in nature and does not attempt to measure the full capabilities of any firm, nor was it designed as a statistically representative analysis of the architectural visualization industry.
Companies were selected based on their discovery in AI-assisted search and conversational model outputs during the sampling period. The study therefore evaluates a defined subset of firms surfaced through those discovery channels rather than the global market.
Observed outcomes may vary under different conditions, including:
Project type or scale differences
Seasonal workload fluctuations
Alternative communication workflows
Geographic pricing structures
Client-specific briefing processes
Information provided should be interpreted as competitive market research outcomes within the defined test conditions rather than universal performance indicators. No attempt was made to audit internal business operations, verify production capacity, or validate project outcomes beyond the interaction stage.
The findings describe recorded outcomes from a single controlled interaction and should not be interpreted as characterizations of any company’s general business practices or performance.
Different clients, project scopes, or communication approaches may lead to different experiences with the same firms.
AI Discovery Context
AI-assisted search systems continuously evolve as underlying sources, models, and query phrasing change.
Because company selection was derived from entities appearing in those systems during the research sampling window, inclusion or omission should not be interpreted as a definitive representation of the industry at any given time.
This publication reflects a point-in-time comparison rather than a permanent ranking.
AI-generated results can vary depending on phrasing, timing, model updates, and data sources, so the set of companies identified represents only a snapshot of those systems during the sampling period for a single user.
Commissioning and Data Collection
This research was commissioned by Render 3D Quick and carried out by an external researcher following a predefined inquiry format established prior to data collection. Render 3D Quick did not control how other firms responded and did not alter the information received.
The purpose for the research was to better understand how companies appearing in AI-assisted discovery channels handled an initial project request similar to those received from prospective clients, in relation to Render 3D Quick’s performance.
Render 3D Quick did not conduct outreach to firms directly. The inquiry process and data recording followed the predefined methodology established at the outset of the research.
Information Considered During the research
The research noted certain types of information that were either publicly available or shared directly in responses to the inquiry.
Information recorded included:
General timing of replies during the observation window
Publicly visible review counts or ratings where available
Any pricing or scope details voluntarily shared
Delivery timelines if they were mentioned in correspondence
The research did not attempt to assess design quality, technical methods, staffing, software, or project outcomes. These dimensions may be relevant in design evaluation contexts but require deeper engagement and were outside the scope of this research.
No independent verification of company capabilities was performed, and this article reflects only the information exchanged during this initial contact.
Corrections and Update Policy
Companies mentioned in this article may submit factual clarifications or request that they be removed from the article via the contact form here. Where appropriate, updates may be incorporated in future revisions so that the description of interactions remains accurate.
Updates address factual details only and do not change the descriptive nature of the article.
Company Interaction Profiles
The following profiles summarize recorded interactions and publicly visible signals captured during the research.
Each profile follows an identical structure to maintain consistency and allow comparison across the research results. Companies are sorted by review count in descending order.
All observations reflect conditions during the January - February 2026 interaction window. Review observations are current as of 21st February 2026.
1. Render 3D Quick
Website: https://render3dquick.com/
Public Market Signals: 879 Google reviews, average rating 4.9/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided in ≤ 15 minutes
Pricing Observation: $1,495 total project quote; full scope
Delivery Indicators: First draft 3 business days
$100 discount included for same day project start
Percentage of profits donated to Habitat For Humanity
2. CAD Crowd
Website: https://www.cadcrowd.com
Public Market Signals: 170 (Trust Pilot) and 15 (G2) reviews, average rating 4.7/5.0 and 4.9/5.10
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 3–6 hours
Pricing Observation: $1,500 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: Not specified
3. Bella Staging
Website: https://www.bellavirtual.com
Public Market Signals: 96 (Google) and 3 (Houzz) reviews, average rating 5.0/5.0 and 5.0/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided in 15–30 minutes
Pricing Observation: $2,200 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft in 7 days
4. Yantram Studio
Website: https://yantramstudio.com
Public Market Signals: 31 (Facebook), (Google), 6 (Houzz), 3 (Homify), 1 (Zillow) reviews, average rating: 86% recommend, 5.0/5.0, 4.7/5.0, 5.0/5.0, 5.0/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 3–6 hours
Pricing Observation: $650 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft approximately 4 days
Appears to be headquartered outside of North America
5. Arktek 3D
Website: https://arktek3d.com/
Public Market Signals: 38 (Trust Index) and 4 (Facebook) reviews, average rating 5.0/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided in 3 - 6 hours
Pricing Observation: $1,500 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft stated as approximately 1 business day
6. NoTriangle Studio
Website: https://notrianglestudio.com/
Public Market Signals: 40 (Google) reviews, average rating 5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 3–6 hours
Pricing Observation: $2,250 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: Not specified.
7. Applet3D
Website: https://applet3d.com
Public Market Signals: 25 (Google) and 2 (FB) reviews, average rating 4.9/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 3–6 hours
Pricing Observation: $2,350 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft in 5 days
8. RealSpace 3D
Website: https://www.realspace3d.com/
Public Market Signals: 20 (Google), 5 (Houzz) and 2 (Facebook) reviews, average rating 5.0/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 30–60 minutes
Pricing Observation: $2,689 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft within 3 business days
9. 7CGI
Website: https://7cgi.com
Public Market Signals: 10 (Google), 2 (Clutch) and 1 (Design Rush) reviews, average rating 5.0/5.0, 4.5/5.0 and 4.3/5.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided after >12 hours
Pricing Observation: $1,000 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft within 1 day
Appears to be headquartered outside of North America
10. Omega Render
Website: https://omegarender.com/
Public Market Signals: 12 (Facebook) reviews, 94% recommend.
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 3–6 hours
Pricing Observation: $6,000 total project quote
Delivery Indicators: First draft stated as 3 days.
11. Neoscape
Website: https://neoscape.com/
Public Market Signals: 5 (Google) reviews, average rating 4.0
Quote Interaction: Quote provided within 6–12 hours
Pricing Observation: $10,000 total project quote.
Delivery Indicators: Not provided in day turnaround time format
Substantial discount provided for multiple views
Frequently Asked Questions
How were companies selected for inclusion in the research?
Companies were identified based on their discovery in large language model responses and AI-assisted search outputs for the query “Who is the best 3D rendering company?” during the sampling period. Inclusion reflects visibility in those discovery environments, not an assertion of market coverage.
Did AI systems determine the order or results?
No. AI outputs were used only to identify which firms were surfaced for the specified query. All research was based on recorded interaction data gathered through a standardized quote request process.
What type of project was used to compare companies?
Each company received the same brief representing a typical 3d rendering request submitted by architects, builders, developers, homeowners, or real estate professionals. The scope included one exterior rendering, two interior renderings, and two 3D floor plans, with no stylistic references provided unless requested.
Why were awards or portfolio quality not included in the research?
The research focused on measurable procurement variables such as response timing, pricing clarity, and scheduling indicators. Artistic style, portfolio preference, and industry recognition involve subjective evaluation and were intentionally excluded to maintain comparability.
Does appearing in AI or LLM search results mean a company performs well in real Life procurement situations?
Not necessarily. AI-generated results reflect aggregated content signals rather than observed commercial interaction behavior. This research explored how companies responded within a controlled, real-world request scenario.
Can these results change over time?
Yes. Operational capacity, pricing structures, staffing levels, and market conditions are constantly evolving. AI discovery outputs also change as models update. The research reflects a point-in-time measurement conducted in January and February 2026.
Does this research represent the entire 3D rendering industry?
No. It evaluates only a subset of companies that appeared in AI-assisted discovery channels during the sampling window. It is not intended to be an exhaustive industry directory.
How should readers interpret the research?
The research explored one defined procurement scenario. It should be understood as a structured comparison of observable commercial variables under those conditions rather than a universal determination of suitability for every project type.
Inquiry data captured: January-February 2026
Review data captured: 21st February 2026
Publication date: 25th February 2026