Deepnest-next vs NestForge: DXF and SVG nesting
Deepnest-next is a free desktop nester with common-line merging. NestForge runs locally in your browser and accepts SVG and text DXF directly. The choice depends on the files you use and how you prepare the cut.
The practical differences
| Workflow | Deepnest-next | NestForge |
|---|---|---|
| Where it runs | Desktop application | Browser, local file processing |
| DXF import | Through conversion | Direct text-DXF import |
| Common-line merging | Documented feature | Not included |
| Cost | Open source | Free: nest any size, export 10 parts / 1 sheet; full v1: €49 once |
If common-line cutting is central to your workflow, Deepnest-next is worth evaluating. For a quick SVG/DXF layout without installing a desktop app, start with NestForge's free version.
See an actual layout before choosing
Our eight-panel acrylic enclosure example includes source contours, project settings and real exports. It compares one 900 × 600 mm sheet with two 600 × 400 mm sheets for the same eight parts. Use the supplied DXFs to try your own settings in either tool.
Keep quantities, spacing and rotation rules equal. Compare complete layouts and the exported geometry, then check the result in CAM. The example compares stock sizes within NestForge, not one tool against another.
What a NestForge run shows
The progress display shows the current phase, counts and elapsed time. Where supported, you can stop the search and keep its best checked result. A downloadable diagnostic report helps with support without including part geometry or names.
Earlier benchmark measurements and method
What the recorded comparison found
In our own vendor-run comparison dated 11 July 2026, NestForge was measured against the live SVGnest site and deepnest-next 1.5.6 on macOS arm64 using 12 ESICUP strip-packing instances. The recorded best strip lengths gave NestForge 9 shorter results, 2 longer results and 1 tie against SVGnest; it was shorter than deepnest-next on all 12. On jakobs2, SVGnest reached 27.4 versus NestForge 28.0; on trousers, 241.9 versus 249.4; jakobs1 tied at 13.0. These are recorded instance units, not millimetre cutting recommendations.
How to interpret that evidence
The internal method records seeds 42, 1337 and 9001 and NestForge budgets of 2,000 and 20,000 iterations. Candidate runs marked invalid were discarded; the reported NestForge strip lengths use accepted runs. This is not an independent benchmark or a claim of a publicly reproducible protocol. Different versions, time budgets, settings and parts can change the result. Digital geometry checks also do not certify a physical cut.