Compare Adobe Substance 3D Painter and Mudbox 
- Users report that Mudbox excels in sculpting with a score of 6.8, but reviewers mention that Adobe Substance 3D Painter offers superior texture capabilities, scoring 8.9, making it a better choice for detailed texturing work.
- Reviewers mention that Mudbox has a brush variety score of 8.7, which is appreciated for its versatility, while users on G2 highlight that Adobe Substance 3D Painter's color capabilities score 9.1, providing a richer palette for artists.
- G2 users indicate that the import and export functionalities are strong in both products, with Mudbox scoring 8.3 in both areas, but users report that Adobe Substance 3D Painter's integrations score slightly higher at 8.0, making it easier to incorporate into existing workflows.
- Reviewers mention that Mudbox's dynamic tessellation feature scores 7.4, which is useful for creating complex models, but users say that Adobe Substance 3D Painter's overall product direction is more positively viewed at 8.7, indicating a more promising future for updates and features.
- Users report that while both products have a good quality of support, Mudbox scores 7.8, whereas Adobe Substance 3D Painter has a slightly better score of 8.3, suggesting a more responsive support system for users facing issues.
- Reviewers mention that Mudbox is particularly favored by small businesses, with 54.2% of reviews coming from this segment, while Adobe Substance 3D Painter has an even higher percentage at 75.2%, indicating a stronger alignment with the needs of smaller teams.
I like the library of preset materials. It makes it really easy to iterate and conceptualize different looks for the same model. Its also super fast
At its core, Substance Painter is clunky. It's very resource-heavy for the average user and can be challenging to work in if the computer's hardware wasn't built for 3D work. Additionally, Adobe's render engine is still terrible. On an average PC or Mac,...
1. Easy to learn and easy to use for Maya users. I use Maya before learning Mudbox and it didn't take me much time to be able to use Mudbox. 2. Awesome at exporting maps. I really like the how the maps looks in Maya and Unity. I think Mudbox is doing a...
Mudbox does not have Zbrush's dynamesh system, as such, its sculpting capabilities do not come close to Zbrush.
I like the library of preset materials. It makes it really easy to iterate and conceptualize different looks for the same model. Its also super fast
1. Easy to learn and easy to use for Maya users. I use Maya before learning Mudbox and it didn't take me much time to be able to use Mudbox. 2. Awesome at exporting maps. I really like the how the maps looks in Maya and Unity. I think Mudbox is doing a...
At its core, Substance Painter is clunky. It's very resource-heavy for the average user and can be challenging to work in if the computer's hardware wasn't built for 3D work. Additionally, Adobe's render engine is still terrible. On an average PC or Mac,...
Mudbox does not have Zbrush's dynamesh system, as such, its sculpting capabilities do not come close to Zbrush.
