Matterport

My main use case is scanning houses and locations of floods for my restoration job. During my restoration period, when I received a flood call, I would arrive on the scene with a Matterport 3D camera and have the app opened. I would scan each room and each angle of the room, and I would upload it to create a detailed 3D map of the house on Matterport.

Matterport seamlessly connects all the 3D scans into a VR-like 3D model of the house, which is really detailed and usable, and the dimensions are really accurate as well.

It made providing the insurance documents really easy. It made it really quick because the floor plans are automatically generated.

When you provide insurance documentation, you normally have to measure the house and the area affected. Matterport allows you to just 3D scan the environment and import the floor plan right into the estimate for insurance, so that saved around 30 minutes to an hour per job.

Matterport can be improved by training the AI to blend the images better because there are often issues where scans need to be redone or another picture taken due to issues with the scans.

I used Matterport for two months.

Matterport is really reliable. In my experience, it has been perfectly reliable with no issues.

There are no scalability issues.

There are no customer service notes.

Matterport speeds things up by a lot.

I rate this product 8 out of 10 because it is a really great product, and I have high standards. Sometimes there are minor issues, such as the cropping not being perfect and there being anomalies, but overall, it is really great.

Matterport is a great product for productivity among surveying and scanning types of jobs. It is really fast and reliable.

My main use case for Matterport is importing spherical images and renders. I render full spherical 360 images and then import them into Matterport to create a space that I share with clients. The resolution I work with is 16K. Regarding my main use case with Matterport, it has become expensive lately, which is the only issue I face.

The best features Matterport offers are that it was the first in the field at the market and that its name is massively used for virtual tours.

Matterport being the first in the field and its recognition for virtual tours has helped me because I didn't have to explain too much about what it was. People already knew what I was talking about, and I was able to apply my knowledge to an already existing culture.

Matterport has impacted my organization positively because we don't have to all go to the construction sites. Sometimes we just send one person who creates a space in Matterport, and then we all can see it and have everything on our computers in our office.

This change has had a measurable impact in saving time and reducing costs for my team. Instead of going through a thousand pictures of a site, we directly go to the place we need on the site and look for the details we need for designing or better understanding. Matterport is really crucial in that field.

Matterport can be improved with automation. Right now, we have only plans in CAD. If we had sections as well, it would be very useful. I think someone would purchase those as well next to plans in CAD and DWG.

I would add that if Matterport introduced tokens as a paying structure instead of the number of active spaces we have to maintain, that would be better. Additionally, if we could see all inactive spaces and archived spaces, that would be very helpful. This would allow us to view spaces for ourselves without sharing with anyone. These are the things that bother me the most.

I have been using Matterport for five years.

Matterport is pretty stable.

Regarding Matterport's scalability, I find it very difficult to assess because it is very expensive. I am not in the United States, so it is very difficult for me to keep up with the prices.

I found customer support at Matterport to be very great. I highly recommend it.

I did not previously use any other solution.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing involves seeing billing spaces and pricing increase some years ago. These changes took considerable thought at the top office. Management had to consider cutting Matterport entirely or just cutting some active spaces. In the end, I don't know what decision they made.

I have seen a return on investment, but I don't know if my employer really saw the benefit of it. In the end, they went with the higher priced product.

Before choosing Matterport, I did not evaluate other options.

The features of Matterport are great, particularly its cameras and everything. I don't have anything to add or subtract, but the main issue now is that Matterport has competitors that are less expensive.

Regarding Matterport's AI capabilities, I think its security is top-notch. The AI is really great and useful in creating empty spaces. It's not perfect, but it's very useful in some cases.

Regarding the accuracy and reliability of output from Matterport's AI capabilities, I cannot respond to this since I haven't used the Pro3. I have only used 360 cameras and render imports, so I cannot speak to precision in that field. However, I think it is also very reliable based on everything I have seen online.

My advice for others looking into using Matterport is that you will not regret it if you try it. You will be pretty sure hooked on it quite fast.

I have additional thoughts about Matterport that if it considered the outside US market a bit more differently with different pay grades and pricing structures, that would be beneficial.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Matterport overall as seven because I think it lacks some things that other competitors have.

I primarily use Matterport to capture as-built conditions, so for the projects we work on, we require most of the time to produce an as-built condition of the asset. We capture it using Matterport and we use that now to update our as-builts.

We also sometimes use Matterport for marketing. For example, some Airbnbs capture properties and then post them on their website as a showcase for advertisements for Airbnbs and hotel rooms.

Here in Kenya, in a town called Mombasa, we captured a data center where we captured the entire facility.

One of the best features Matterport offers is the point cloud feature that allows you to link your point clouds to your model. The other feature is clear visuals for advertising; it's very high quality and also quick navigation through the model for easy as-built conditions comparison.

The point cloud feature benefits my workflow by allowing me to trace when doing your models and when updating as-built models, so it's much easier and much quicker. It also helps improve the accuracy when you're placing your items in the model. The clear Matterport captures, especially with the Matterport Pro3, which is able to capture outside conditions, enable you to advertise your property fully, and the client can do a walk-through very clearly and straightforward.

With the as-built capture, we normally don't need to keep going back to the site to verify. Once we do the capture, then everyone who is updating their as-built capture can check in the capture and verify whatever they are doing. This has really reduced the amount of time you need to go back to the site and check on things before you update them. It also helps clients to view properties before they need to even go and actually visit them.

I estimate that we save about 60% of the time that would be spent going back to the site to keep re-measuring and confirming.

One way Matterport can be improved is that capturing using the Matterport camera tends to be quite bulky and slow. If there were a way for Matterport to improve or perhaps have a version of the camera which you can wear and just walk with it to do the captures a bit faster, that would be nice.

I have used Matterport for the past six years.

It depends on the amount of projects requiring as-builts, but as we expand into AI infrastructure with all the data centers and all the coastal solutions, I think it's very scalable since all of these assets will require an as-built asset to be presented at the end of the project.

Customer support is good; I have no complaints.

We have not used any other solution for these as-built captures.

We have seen the return on investment from the client end paying for the as-built capture and the initial cost of setting up and doing the capture. There's been a lot of time saved by all the subcontractors needing to go to the site to verify what they are working on, so there's been a saving of about 30% on transportation cost. There's also been a return on investment from the client hiring us to do the as-built captures.

We normally push the subscription fees to our clients and there's been no complaints. The initial cost for purchasing of the equipment is a bit on the higher side, but otherwise, the subscription is very fair.

We evaluated other options such as OpenSpace, but the point cloud generated from that and drone captures from that wasn't as accurate as we expected it to be.

Advice I would give other people looking to use Matterport is they should get the Pro3 since it captures outside conditions. I've used the Pro2 for a long time, but the Pro3 is really nice, being able to capture even the outside. I also recommend that you always plan your captures; if you're going to capture an as-built asset, plan it before you go there. Planning ahead will enable you to do your captures more efficiently and much faster. I give this product an overall rating of 8.

I was working as a BIM modeler and mechanical engineer, with my main role handling the MEP perspective of the BIM models. While using Matterport, which is very user-friendly, it showed me the real working space in 3D visionary visualization and gave proper visualization data of the site where I could see through pipes, ducts, and all these sorts of assets in the construction buildings. It was a very good experience while using Matterport.

I used Matterport at the Travel America site. I was doing the warehouse and Travel America project, one of their major warehouse projects with different warehouse sites and different MEP ducts, pipes, electrical systems, and sanitation systems as well as washrooms and everything else. It was all displayed through Matterport's user interface, and it was very easy to locate, allocate each asset, and navigate every asset present on the site so that I could model it in Revit for my BIM perspective.

Matterport is basically owned by the company that has its package for Matterport; they don't use any other cloud servers. I haven't chosen any other option.

Matterport is very useful in terms of site documentation and visualization, facility inspection, or site inspection with the ability to get it through. I can also get a walkthrough of the MEP layouts throughout the overall site area or the plant area so that everything can be explained to the higher authorities or the client perspective as well, making it very handy in terms of site visualization.

In terms of inspection, Matterport is helpful for navigating. Since I am using Matterport from the company's account, it enables different features of navigation, and I used different types of scales for measuring the areas. I use different sets of angles in terms of inspection for getting to know things about the ducting, such as what type of ducts are placed within that area above the ceiling and what it looks like below the ceiling, what type of pipe it is—whether it is oval-shaped, rounded, or a different type—and what type of duct, whether it is oval-shaped, circular, or rectangular. Everything was very much easier to navigate while using this platform, which also has very good features for measuring scales and going through different angles for visualization.

Matterport's main purpose was to build a BIM model, so I have to build a proper model of the site through inspecting it using Matterport. My main agenda for using Matterport is basically building this main model, so I have to use it with whatever the conditions are.

I have used Navisworks, which is very useful for navigating clash detection and is useful to go back and forth within the platform. If there is any feature available for MEP perspective, that would be very much helpful because I have seen there is a perspective with an upper edge for the construction or civil site, but for the MEP perspective, it is quite low, as I have to look around for those assets more often. Matterport's MEP perspective should be improved, whatever the conditions are.

Regarding accuracy, Matterport's accuracy is basically good, but not the very best because, as I mentioned earlier, it shows the ducts and everything; it does not show the proper imagery system or the accurate output in results. That is why I think Matterport's MEP perspective should be improved to enhance its overall accuracy.

I have used Matterport for two to three months and it was a very good experience.

Matterport is stable.

Regarding scalability related to project requirements, the bigger the project, the more I can say for small or medium category projects it is pretty much handy, but for large projects it requires a lot of effort, and sometimes for mega projects it lags as well. I have to scrutinize everything on a certain level; for a building or warehouse, I have to scrutinize everything on the floor basis—first floor, second floor, and ground floor—to avoid feeling any lagginess while using Matterport. Since I am using it on the cloud, there can be internet lags or fluctuations that might hinder my work.

For ROI, I cannot comment on that specifically, but a lot of time has been saved because I had projects back and forth, and it was very cost-effective while using Matterport and doing the projects for the client. So it was basically saving a lot of money, but it is a 50-50 situation for Matterport because I cannot comment on it since my main type of work was on Revit; Matterport is just a subsidiary platform for those purposes.

I think everything is fine; I haven't worked a lot on Matterport, but I think it has very good features. It cannot be improved, but right now I don't have any comment on that.

Using Matterport basically saves time, not very specifically, but in general. It saves a lot of time because I am basically not present at the remote area; I am working in a different area, so I have the visualizations of the data that is visualized on the software, which is apparently in another country, but I have everything within my screen, which allows a lot of time to be saved, reduces a lot of errors, and facilitates good collaboration amongst the team. There is good coordination amongst the team as well, between the team lead and team members. If there is any error or anything left out in the model that I am building, a BIM model, it can be reviewed and navigated through Matterport's user interface.

Matterport is a very handy software; it is very user-friendly, and I love using it while working. I would love to work more if I get the opportunity again.

Matterport's security is very good because it uses a company's account, so it cannot be shared with others. Every individual has their own account, so the security is good.

I use Matterport on-premises; I think it is on-premises at the office. It can be used as a private cloud as well because it is private to my firm.

Matterport has a different agenda; I have seen it used for construction, but I have used Navisworks for offshore plants in the oil and gas perspective, which has a different navigation style and different features. Matterport has a different navigating style, and everything has its own features, so I think it is pretty much good where they are.

Matterport is a very good software that will be very much helpful while gaining experience and navigating good projects like Travel America, Burlingtons, or whatever the sites are, such as Levi's Mall or any shopping mall. It can be very much helpful for the navigation perspective and for site inspection as well. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Matterport is for the 3D scanning of buildings and spaces, whether for work or leisure, as we primarily target companies such as restaurants or offices within our community that would like to broadcast or sell certain products or services.

One of the largest scale Matterport uses that we have completed is for a university in Nigeria called Nile University, which requested our services to scan the entirety of the college, including their classrooms and other lounges, to help parents easily access and see the resources of the school without physically going there.

I also completed a 3D scan for a restaurant called Taters, a three-star, very expensive restaurant, where we published it on Google Maps for people to have an idea of the ambiance before making a reservation. Additionally, we have scanned for a company offering dedicated and reserved private workspaces for others to showcase their services.

The best features that Matterport offers include the impressive accuracy of the 3D scans and the subsequent floor plan, which accurately reflects the sizes of the scanned spaces. I enjoy the ability to measure lengths and sizes, edit, and create guided tours for presentations without manual clicks.

Our clients often find the most impressive feature is the 3D view after scanning, as they appreciate seeing an entire 360-degree view of their spaces and enjoy the virtual reality experience we provide, which makes them feel as though they are inside the building.

Matterport positively impacts my organization because what you see is what you get, capturing the authenticity of the spaces, thereby cutting down potential client issues since the representation is true to the actual space.

After scanning co-working spaces, we see a 10 percent increase in customer count after publishing those scans, as clients can enjoy the service and make commitments before even coming in. Additionally, a restaurant reported a 1 to 2 percent increase in customer count after their Matterport scans were published on Google Maps.

I personally use the Pro2 version of Matterport, which uses infrared detectors, but I find scanning outdoors frustrating because its accuracy is affected by sunlight. Improvements such as enhancing accuracy between scanning points to require fewer steps would greatly benefit our process.

For software integrations, it would be beneficial if Matterport allowed for easier integration into various spaces without difficulties, as it proves challenging to embed scans on all web browsers. Additionally, increasing the storage space for scans would be appreciated since we find ourselves deleting old scans to accommodate new ones.

I give it an eight because the time required to complete full scans is significant, sometimes taking an entire day, and the integration aspects could improve. With improvements in these areas, I see no reason why it could not be a ten out of ten.

I have not used many of Matterport's AI capabilities, so I do not provide a specific metric on accuracy, though I expect improvements are necessary and I look forward to advancements.

I have been working in my current field for approximately four years.

In my experience, Matterport is stable, with downtime occurring only on one or two occasions, which were due to issues on our end, not with Matterport itself.

Matterport's service is scalable within the right environment, particularly in real estate, making it an impressive solution for our needs.

The customer support is decent; I have not needed it much, but when colleagues have reached out, they received timely and proper responses.

Matterport is the first solution we implemented, discovered through research, and we did not consider other options as we found it to be an immediate fit for our needs.

In terms of return on investment, we have seen time saved and fewer employees needed, making the process more efficient. Although I am uncertain about specific monetary savings, we view our number of completed scans and generated revenue positively.

Overall, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Matterport are on the expensive side in Nigeria; however, I find the service and features provided fair when analyzing the value we receive.

We did not evaluate many other options aside from Matterport since our discovery was made through random research, but the analysis indicated it was more than sufficient for what we wanted, leading us to invest in the cameras and services.

I advise others, especially in the construction or real estate industry, to use Matterport, as development is occurring everywhere, and its capabilities allow virtual observation of physical spaces.

Using Matterport is very exciting for me, and I would love to utilize it more in construction and real estate, which I am passionate about. It truly represents my interests, and I look forward to seeing further improvements. I gave this review a rating of eight out of ten.

I use Matterport for insurance claims and in construction for the beginning and the end of the project, including sign-off and end of construction when walls are closed up. This covers key milestones in the construction process. I also use it for maintaining a record for neighboring units and buildings and structures for insurance purposes in case anything goes wrong or is claimed during construction. Additionally, I use it for insurance purposes in general for those dealing with losses and needing to document the current status of their situation.

Matterport has given me an option to document site progress without having to use cameras and rely on subcontractors who often miss out on imagery. 360 photos are almost paramount at this point because you are never going to miss anything. You are never standing in front of the thing you needed to take a picture of and forgot. Everything is always captured, and the fact that it is automatically merged ensures that there is never a situation in which information is missed, unless a whole area is just omitted for a specific reason.

Outside of that, it is obviously a much cheaper device than to buy, let us say, a bunch of Lidar scanners just to use them for virtual walkthrough purposes if you do not need that accurate point cloud data. So it is just giving me the best tool for the value for the specific workflows that it is useful for.

Fewer employees are needed to document these things. I have brought it all in-house to my reality capture department. There is time and money savings in that because I am in and out to get the job done instead of someone sandbagging because it is a part of their job that they do not really want to do. They would rather do the work than document the work that has been done. So that is the money and the cost savings.

Matterport needs to find a way to do what they are doing with SLAM instead of terrestrial. The biggest drawback to Matterport these days, and why other tools are being used, is that you only have a certain amount of time to capture data, and unfortunately, terrestrial devices do not really allow for that. Second, you have not made it permanent for manually aligning captures in the Matterport app. Every now and then it allows me to do a manual align, but that needs to be a standard feature. Instead of saying, 'I cannot find any alignment, please scan again,' it should give me the option of just moving the alignment myself. I understand that Matterport is built for you to need to do things in a certain sequence, but the reality is that sometimes I have to go back to rooms later on. Sometimes there are rooms that are symmetrical, and in those cases, it can really help if you have some user input.

It saves a lot of time and it saves a lot of capture time. On top of all of that, the actual application itself is very unstable. You reach a certain amount of captures and the device does not work anymore. But then that messes up the entire workflow. If the project is too big to work on the app and I have to build another one, I need to create two projects and then wait for those to merge. And then I have to take both projects individually and align them to each other and let that merge again. So now I am talking about waiting a day for the thing to automatically align, and then I have to merge it manually, and then wait a day for those results. So instead of getting results in one day, I have to do it in two days, and it is all because of the reliability of the application.

I think that Matterport is overpriced. At this point, there should be some SLAM integration with maybe terrestrial as an anchor if needed. And if they want to push all of these products such as CAD and point clouds from their data sets, then they should truly work on making sure that that data is accurate enough for what it needs to do. The market is oversaturated with people with Matterport devices trying to do Lidar jobs, but the accuracy is not good enough. Getting a CAD plan exported, but it is not a vector, and it is a locked-down PDF essentially makes it useless. If you want to keep things locked down and not able to be vectorized, then that seems to say a lot about the accuracy, in which case point clouds and vector CAD should not be available at all.

I think that there is much to be improved. There should never be a situation where Matterport cannot find data to match and it asks me to rescan. At the end of the day, if it was using photogrammetry and something such as lighting was the reason why it cannot find any alignment points, that would be one thing, but you have Lidar included. So if you have Lidar, that means there are overlapping points, and if there are overlapping points, there should always be a match. If you cannot find a match, that means that your algorithm is not mature enough or your Lidar data is not actually accurate enough.

The scalability is pretty low, considering the fact that the price to scale up sites is already immensely high, and there is no benefit to having multiple devices at a time. You can capture a site faster, but as I said, it ends up taking the same amount of time by the time it auto-processes it, I manually merge, and then have to wait for that merger to process. Somebody can go and get half of it done in one day, half of it done in another, and it will take the same amount of time. Matterport needs to find a way in its apps to allow me to merge prior to doing the full processing, so that way I do not lose that same time twice.

Pricing is pretty straightforward, but it is overpriced. That is the reason I found a solution to take my Matterport spaces down and put them on a local desktop so that way it can be embedded, shared, or kept locally. The first reason is for security purposes. The second reason is because the price is entirely too high, but I understand that once you are in this ecosystem, it is hard to leave. There is only a tool, I think Doxel, which will allow me to transfer over Matterport projects into their ecosystem so that at least on their site, I can access the scans done for Matterport as well as from their own software. But there is no solution to actually take your data from Matterport and move it somewhere else. So once you join, you are basically locked in. And the unfortunate thing is that it is really set up for real estate tours as far as the pricing is concerned. So if you are using it for anything other than that, you are definitely overpaying.

I have been using Matterport since 2016, so that would be 10 years.

The device is stable, but the app is not.

The scalability is pretty low, considering the fact that the price to scale up sites is already immensely high, and there is no benefit to having multiple devices at a time. You can capture a site faster, but as I said, it ends up taking the same amount of time by the time it auto-processes it, I manually merge, and then have to wait for that merger to process. Somebody can go and get half of it done in one day, half of it done in another, and it will take the same amount of time. Matterport needs to find a way in its apps to allow me to merge prior to doing the full processing, so that way I do not lose that same time twice.

The customer support response time is typically within 24 to 72 hours, so it is pretty standard.

Prior to all of these situations, everyone was either using their personal camera or phones with a camera enabled. I also tried using some 360 camera solutions such as StructionSite, Doxel, and the alike. I cannot remember them all right now.

I do not have exact numbers, but the time saved is astronomical. Think of taking nine or ten subcontractors and having them make their own pictures on a weekly basis to prove their progress. Now someone can come in and get that work done once and for all in about a tenth of the time and the cost. Not to mention that the subcontractors can now focus on other tasks or completing additional work instead of documenting the work that has already been done. From a time savings perspective, it is not really the fastest device out there, but for the quality, it is the fastest device. And I guess for those who have been using Matterport for a while now, going from the Pro 2 to the Pro 3 is a huge difference in terms of time savings.

The cheap cost of the device is really offset by the monthly cost of the subscription to where it almost makes sense to give up some image quality, get a cheaper Lidar scanner, and at least you can have a virtual tour that is a little bit degraded, but the Lidar data is useful if anybody actually needs that point cloud data. And then on top of that, you are dealing with a lot cheaper software licensing fees depending on who you go with.

There are Lidar scanners that create virtual tours that I use, such as the Navis VLX. Obviously, it is too expensive just for that purpose, but I do use it in the cases where I do not have the time to use Matterport and need a virtual walkthrough. Or in cases where sites get too large and there are people walking around, and so the context is shifting as I am trying to capture the data and it makes it almost impossible to get through a site walk. Other than that, a lot of 360 camera options were used, such as StructionSite, Doxel, DroneDeploy, and there are numerous others that are pretty much the same and did the same thing. Outside of that, they have the Real C and a few other options that are made for virtual tours that I tried at CES, but never really did any big trials.

I would make sure that it really aligns with your use case. Really figure out if the image quality is worth all of the other drawbacks, because there are other options with the same if not better image quality that are not industry standard, and there are other devices with slightly less image quality that are going to be better suited for whatever your workflow is. Keep in mind most of those devices or products are utilizing SLAM and any 360 camera. So as 360 cameras improve, who is to say that it will not actually eclipse Matterport. I would give this solution an overall rating of 8.