Compare
High QA vs DISCUS: which one for first article inspection?
Two desktop heavyweights, compared on ballooning, AS9102 and PPAP output, and the work both leave on your desk.
Mavlon competes in this market, so read with that in mind. We wrote this because quality engineers ask this exact question and get marketing pages instead of an answer. Claims below reflect each vendor's public documentation as of mid 2026.
Side by side
The comparison
| Criterion | High QA | DISCUS | Mavlon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Desktop install, per machine | Desktop install, per machine | Cloud, any browser |
| Primary input | Drawings plus CAD, CMM-oriented | Native CAD via Smart Extract, plus PDF | 2D PDF, scanned prints included |
| Ballooning | Auto-balloon assist | Smart Extract, strongest from the model | AI reads the full drawing, around 90 percent, rest flagged |
| Tolerance interpretation | Detection-first; engineer applies notes and fits | Detection-first; engineer applies notes and fits | General notes applied by size, fit classes expanded, flag notes mapped |
| Report output | AS9102 and PPAP | AS9102 focus | AS9102 Form 3, Net-Inspect, PPAP dimensional results |
| CMM integration | Deep, a core strength | CMM import supported | Results map back onto the Form 3 |
| Inspection planning | Yes, full module | Characteristic extraction focus | FAI-focused, not a planning suite |
| Time to first result | Install, setup, training | Install and setup | First drawing in about 5 minutes, free |
Vendor columns reflect public documentation as of mid 2026. Corrections: atishay@mavlon.co.
The decision factors
How to actually choose
Where do your characteristics come from? This is the deepest difference. DISCUS Smart Extract works from the native CAD file: if your shop designs the parts or receives models, extraction from the model beats OCR on a print. High QA sits closer to the inspection side: drawings and CMM programs. But most make-to-print suppliers receive a customer PDF and no model, and on a PDF both tools are back to detection plus engineer.
PPAP or not? High QA publicly markets both AS9102 FAI and PPAP generation in one suite, which suits shops feeding aerospace and automotive from the same quality system. DISCUS is positioned primarily around aerospace first article work. If PPAP dimensional results are routine for you, that weighs toward High QA.
CMM depth. High QA's inspection planning and CMM integration is its core identity: characteristics flow to CMM programs and results flow back. If your parts all cross a CMM and you want plans, not just reports, High QA earns its setup cost.
IT reality. Both are desktop installs with per-machine licensing and real onboarding. Budget the rollout time honestly, and if the team needs to balloon from any machine or any site, neither fits without IT help.
What neither column changes
The reading is still yours
Whichever you pick, look at what happens after detection on a customer PDF: the ISO 2768 note still has to be applied to every untoleranced dimension by size range, the H7 still has to become 9.000 to 9.015 in the tolerance cell, and flag note 6 still has to find its three features. On a dense multi-sheet drawing that interpretation is the afternoon, not the ballooning.
Mavlon automates exactly that step. It reads the PDF, scans included, like a senior quality engineer: general note tolerances applied by size, fit classes expanded, GD&T frames complete with datums, flag notes mapped, and a Form 3 that arrives filled instead of blank. Shops that keep High QA or DISCUS for planning and CMM work still put Mavlon in front for the reading. The first drawing is free; your own worst print is the fairest test.
Test the third option before the two demos.
Upload the drawing you would evaluate High QA or DISCUS with. Three minutes later you will know what interpretation feels like.
Try with One DrawingFirst drawing is free. No signup. No salesperson.