Most teams comparing Polycam to FARO Focus are really asking one question: does this project need certified, millimeter accuracy, or does it need something fast and affordable enough to use on every job? Plenty of AEC work falls into the second category. This guide covers speed, cost, and workflow first, then the accuracy numbers themselves, honestly, and the specific projects where FARO's precision is worth the cost.
At a glance: when each one wins
| Capture method | Mobile LiDAR / photogrammetry (iPhone, iPad, drone) | Tripod-mounted terrestrial laser scanner |
|---|---|---|
| Setup | None, open the app and walk | Tripod leveling and scan-position setup, repeated at every position |
| Pricing | $400/year, 1 user (Business plan, published) | Not published, quote-based dealer purchase plus calibration/training |
| Best for | Fast documentation, existing conditions, small-to-mid projects | High-LOD BIM, structural monitoring, legal/regulatory survey work |
| Accuracy & range | ±½ inch within \~5m per surface (Polycam's own testing) | Up to ±2mm within up to 400m (varies by model) |
Capture speed and setup
Polycam has effectively no setup: open the app and start walking. There's no leveling, no tripod, no position planning beyond a sensible walking route. Polycam's own guidance puts a good rule of thumb at about two minutes of walking per hundred square feet for a careful capture, and for the project sizes Polycam is actually built for- a room, a floor, a building interior- that's the whole pitch. Polycam's own documentation puts its effective, reliable range at about 5 meters per surface and flags spaces over roughly 5,000 square feet as needing wider accuracy tolerances. Covering a large open area typically means multiple capture sessions rather than one continuous walk, and Polycam has two different tools for that depending on the situation: the Extend tool continues an already-processed capture from where it left off, relocalizing onto the existing scan so the new area links up with the old one, while the Scenes tool places separate, already-finished captures next to each other in one shared space when they were never meant to be one continuous walk to begin with.
FARO Focus requires a setup step at every scan position: leveling the tripod, positioning the scanner, and, if you're using Stream for pre-registered feedback, connecting the app. The scan itself is fast: FARO states its Focus Premium can complete a scan in under 30 seconds using Flash Technology, or up to about one minute per scan in standard mode. But covering a large site takes multiple scan positions, each requiring its own setup and teardown, plus travel time between positions. A rough estimate for a 10,000-square-foot floor, not a FARO-published figure, but a reasonable planning number based on typical scan-position coverage, might run four to eight scan positions, each taking five to ten minutes including setup, scan, and move, putting total time on site in the 30 to 80 minute range before registration and processing even starts.
Cost and pricing model
Polycam's pricing is published directly: a Business plan, which is the tier most professional AEC use cases need for point cloud exports and floor plans, runs $400 per year per user, with no separate hardware purchase since it runs on a phone or iPad the user likely already owns.
FARO doesn't publish list pricing on faro.com. The Focus line is sold through a dealer network on a quote basis, and FARO's own site notes that ongoing costs beyond the initial purchase include calibration, accessories, and training. That makes a FARO Focus a capital equipment purchase requiring a formal quote from a FARO dealer, a structurally different cost category from Polycam's flat, published subscription, independent of the exact figure a given dealer quotes. Anyone budgeting for a specific project should request a current quote directly from FARO or an authorized dealer rather than relying on older reseller pricing found online.
That structural difference is really the point. A certified, millimeter-accurate instrument with a 400-meter range is a different category of tool, priced and sold accordingly; it's not that FARO is overpriced for what it does. It's that most projects don't need that category, and a flat, low, published subscription price is available for the ones that don't.
Workflow comparison
Polycam's workflow is walk, then done. There's no separate registration step for a single continuous scan, since the app is tracking position as you move rather than stitching discrete static captures together after the fact. Processing happens on-device in a couple of minutes for smaller captures, or in the cloud for larger or more complex ones. The output, mesh, point cloud on Business/Enterprise plans, or a floor plan built in the Floor Plan Editor, is usable immediately, without a separate desktop registration step.
FARO's workflow is set up: scan, move, repeat, register, process. Each scan position is a discrete step, and getting full coverage of a complex space means planning a sequence of positions in advance. Registration, stitching individual scan positions into one coherent point cloud, happens either on-site in real time through FARO's Stream app, or afterward in FARO SCENE or a comparable point cloud processing tool. The output is a dense, highly accurate point cloud that's typically imported into software such as Autodesk ReCap, Leica Cyclone, or similar point cloud platforms for further use.
Five projects where you'd pick Polycam
- Existing-conditions capture before a residential or light commercial renovation, where a fast, accurate floor plan generated in Space Mode matters more than millimeter certification.
- Insurance and restoration documentation, where speed and the ability to capture a property in minutes, before or immediately after a loss event, outweighs survey-grade precision.
- A small design-build firm's day-to-day site documentation, where the cost and dealer-quote process of a terrestrial scanner isn't justified by project volume.
- Fast progress documentation on a small-to-mid commercial job, where the deliverable is a visual/dimensional record, not a certified survey.
- Field verification for a bid or estimate, where a contractor needs accurate dimensions same-day, using Auto Measure to generate them without scheduling a scanning crew.
Five projects where you'd pick FARO Focus
- Large industrial or process-plant scanning, where the 400-meter range of the Focus Premium Max and certified accuracy are necessary to capture complex piping, structural steel, and equipment at scale.
- Structural deformation monitoring, where the same fixed scan positions are repeated over time, and any error in the scanner itself would corrupt comparisons between epochs.
- Heritage restoration requiring LOD 400 documentation, where the deliverable needs certified millimeter accuracy for a preservation record or engineering analysis, not just a visual reference.
- Legal or regulatory survey work, including any deliverable that needs to hold up as evidence or meet a certified survey standard, a use case Polycam is explicitly not built for.
- Large-scale topographic or infrastructure survey, where FARO's long-range and Flash Technology scan speed cover ground that a handheld device simply can't reach in the same timeframe.
Accuracy comparison
Per FARO's own product page, the Focus Premium Max delivers 3D accuracy of up to 2mm at a range of up to 400 meters, the mid-range Focus Premium offers the same up-to-2mm accuracy at up to 200 meters, and the entry Focus Core offers up-to-2mm accuracy at up to 100 meters. FARO's full technical specification sheet, published at knowledge.faro.com, breaks accuracy down further by model, distance, and measurement conditions.
Polycam publishes its own accuracy figure too, with the methodology attached: a standard accuracy of ±½ inch for standard interior captures in Space Mode and Floorplan Mode, measured by comparing Polycam's output against a professional laser distometer as the ground truth across varying lighting conditions, scanning speeds, and scanning distances. Ceiling height is Polycam's strongest case, typically matching the reference within a few millimeters, since it captures a single large, unobstructed plane; wall-to-wall measurements generally land within roughly half an inch to two inches, depending on room size and conditions. Polycam's own documentation puts the sensor's effective range for reliable geometry at around 16 feet (5 meters) from a surface, with a sweet spot of 3 to 6 feet, and flags anything over roughly 5,000 square feet as needing a wider tolerance.
That's a real gap, roughly six times tighter for FARO, holding out to 400 meters where Polycam's effective range tops out around 5 meters per surface, and it's worth stating plainly rather than downplaying: for legal, structural, or high-LOD deliverables, FARO's certified tolerance is doing a job Polycam's isn't built for. What Polycam's number is built for is the much larger set of projects where a coarser, methodology-backed, close-range figure is genuinely enough to design, coordinate, and document against. Independent academic testing gives a mixed picture worth citing honestly rather than smoothing over: one 2025 comparison of mobile LiDAR apps found Polycam Pro's error rate notably higher than a competing app in that specific test, while a separate field study found Polycam's LiDAR mode held within roughly 2.5cm in well-lit conditions, closer to Polycam's own stated tolerance. Both are small, single-test studies, not a verdict either way, but they're worth reading directly rather than taking Polycam's word for it.
Hybrid workflow
Framed by what each tool is actually for, the hybrid case is straightforward: use Polycam to cover the parts of a project where ±½ inch at close range is enough, and bring in FARO Focus only for the specific zones where the deliverable actually needs ±2mm certified accuracy or a range beyond what a handheld device can reliably cover.
In practice, that means Polycam goes first. A fast Space Mode walkthrough establishes overall existing conditions, catches obvious clashes, and gives the design team something to work from within hours of the site visit, at a tolerance that's genuinely sufficient for design development, coordination, and most documentation. If that first pass turns up a mechanical room, a structural connection, a large open area over roughly 5,000 square feet, or a heritage detail that needs certified documentation, that's the trigger to schedule a FARO Focus scan for just that zone, rather than defaulting to terrestrial-scanner cost and timeline across an entire site when most of it never needed millimeter accuracy in the first place.
This mirrors how firms already blend other reality capture tools: Polycam for broad, fast coverage; a purpose-built instrument, FARO Focus, or a Leica Geosystems scanner for similar high-accuracy work, reserved for the specific areas where the project's LOD requirement or scan range actually demands it.
FAQ
What are affordable alternatives to premium laser scanners? Mobile LiDAR apps like Polycam are the most accessible option, running on hardware most AEC professionals already own and costing a few hundred dollars a year rather than tens of thousands upfront. They're not a substitute for certified accuracy, but for the large share of documentation and coordination work that doesn't require it, they close most of the practical gap at a fraction of the cost.
How much does a FARO Focus scanner actually cost? FARO doesn't publish list pricing on faro.com. It's sold through a dealer network on a quote basis, with ongoing costs beyond the initial purchase (calibration, accessories, training). For an accurate current price, request a quote directly from FARO or an authorized dealer rather than relying on older reseller listings.
What are good alternatives to FARO for scan-to-BIM work? Depends on what the project needs. For LOD 300, 350, or higher deliverables that require certified accuracy, Leica Geosystems' scanners occupy similar territory to FARO Focus. For lower-LOD documentation, existing conditions, and design coordination, Polycam is a genuinely different category: mobile, subscription-priced, and fast, rather than a like-for-like substitute at the same accuracy tier.
Which is better for as-builts: FARO or mobile scanning? It depends on the deliverable. If the as-built needs to support fabrication tolerances, structural analysis, or certified documentation, FARO Focus is the right tool. If the as-built is for renovation planning, design coordination, or general documentation where practical accuracy is enough, Polycam captures it faster and at a fraction of the cost.
Can Polycam replace a FARO Focus for BIM coordination? For LOD 200 to 300 coordination, general layout, clash-avoidance at a coarse level, and design development, Polycam can often support that work. For LOD 350, 400, or 500 coordination, where trades are fabricating or fitting equipment against the model, FARO Focus's certified accuracy is generally necessary.
Is there a scenario where using both tools makes sense on the same project? Yes, this is common on larger projects. Polycam covers a fast first pass across the whole site for general documentation and coordination, while FARO Focus gets deployed only for the specific zones that need certified, high-LOD accuracy, rather than scanning an entire site at terrestrial cost and timeline by default.
How does FARO's accuracy compare to mobile LiDAR? FARO publishes certified accuracy figures of up to ±2mm, depending on the model and scan distance. Polycam also publishes a real accuracy figure with methodology: ±½ inch standard accuracy on interior captures, tested against a professional laser distometer, within an effective range of about 5 meters per surface. FARO's tolerance is roughly six times tighter and holds at far greater range. Polycam's is coarser and shorter-range, but it's a real, documented number built for a different, much larger set of projects.
Does Polycam work with Autodesk ReCap the way FARO's output does? Polycam's point cloud exports (PLY, LAS, geo-referenced LAS, PTS, XYZ, DXF) are compatible with common point cloud and CAD software, and FARO's own knowledge base documents how to export FARO SCENE data directly into Autodesk ReCap. Either tool's output can generally be brought into ReCap or similar point cloud software; the meaningful difference is the accuracy and density of the data going in, not the compatibility of the output format.