PILARS vs Bobyard:
AI Takeoff Compared

What each tool is

Both PILARS and Bobyard are AI-powered takeoff tools aimed at construction estimators who spend the bulk of their bid preparation time counting quantities from PDF plan sets. Bobyard applies computer vision to automate the quantity and material takeoff process. PILARS reads uploaded PDF plans and produces quantities and bills of quantities across trades, returning structured output that slots into a bid.

Bobyard raised a $35M Series A in December 2025 (BusinessWire), a signal of genuine category momentum. PILARS competes on pricing simplicity and speed to first output, particularly for smaller estimating teams who want results without negotiating a per-seat contract.

Automation scope

Bobyard states it automates up to 70% of the quantity and material takeoff process (Bobyard, 2026). That figure is credible for well-structured commercial drawing sets: repetitive symbol counting, linear measurement along defined runs, and area extraction from clean plan geometry are where computer vision reliably outperforms a human with a cursor. The remaining 30% typically requires an estimator to confirm ambiguous callouts, resolve scope overlap between trades, and handle non-standard details.

PILARS similarly pairs automated extraction with a human verification step. No AI takeoff tool currently ships fully unattended output that a contractor can bid on without review — and any vendor who implies otherwise deserves a skeptical follow-up question. The honest framing from both tools is that automation handles the mechanical, repetitive layer while the estimator handles judgment.

Across trades, symbol counting — outlets, fixtures, diffusers, sprinkler heads — is where automation pays off most visibly. Linear runs of conduit, cable tray, and ductwork are next. Complex structural or specialty scope still benefits from acceleration but demands proportionally more review time.

Accuracy and verification

Industry AI takeoff lands at 85–95% first pass on clean PDFs (Mastt/appintent, 2026). That range is wide because drawing quality matters enormously. A well-layered, correctly scaled digital PDF from a modern architectural firm will outperform a scanned-and-rotated legacy set by a significant margin. Automated counting cuts error from roughly 15% in manual takeoff to under 5% on comparable drawing quality (Trimble, 2026), primarily by eliminating missed symbols and arithmetic slip.

Neither tool should be treated as a substitute for a final verification pass. Before bidding on output from either PILARS or Bobyard, confirm scale against a known dimension, spot-check symbol counts against any schedules in the drawing package, and review scope boundaries across trades. Electrical and mechanical symbol counts are typically more reliable than structural or specialty quantities that depend on interpretation of assembly notes rather than direct geometry.

Pricing model

PILARS charges $100 per trade per plan, with no per-seat fees. That means a five-person estimating team costs no more than a one-person team for the same plan set. For a GC running five trades across a single project, that is $500 for a full BOQ. For a subcontractor running one or two trades per bid, it is $100–$200 per project.

Per-seat tools in the category commonly run $1,700–$3,500 per seat per year (MeltPlan, 2026). At three seats, that is $5,100–$10,500 annually before any usage caps. For a shop doing 40–60 bids a year across multiple trades, per-trade pricing becomes substantially cheaper as team size grows.

The right question to ask any takeoff vendor is: can the whole team log in and produce output without seat charges? If the answer involves seat tiers, named users, or concurrent session limits, the true cost to a firm of five or ten estimators is higher than the headline price suggests. Ask also whether plan data is used to train models — both the pricing structure and the data policy affect total cost of ownership.

• PILARS: $100 per trade per plan, no per-seat fees, whole team included
• Category per-seat range: $1,700–$3,500 per seat/year (MeltPlan, 2026)
• Always confirm whether team access is included and what the data policy is

Which to choose

If predictable, whole-team cost across many trades is the priority, per-trade pricing favors PILARS. A team that bids frequently on multi-trade commercial work will find that per-seat annual fees compound quickly against a flat per-trade cost. If your team is one or two estimators running a low volume of bids, the difference narrows and the decision comes down to workflow fit.

Evaluate both tools on your own plan set, not on vendor-supplied demos. First-pass accuracy varies by drawing quality and trade type, and the only reliable signal is how the tool performs on the drawings you actually receive from your clients. Time the verification step honestly — that is where hidden cost often lives.

Also confirm data policy before committing to either platform. Ask explicitly whether the plan files you upload are used to train or fine-tune models. For projects with NDAs or proprietary design data, this is a non-negotiable due diligence item.

Questions estimators actually ask