Furniture configurator vs 3D/AR viewer: which do you actually need?

Usually not on its own. Configurators earn their cost when variant volume and made-to-order complexity are high enough to justify structured data and integration work for every option. A small store with a standard, stocked catalog typically gets more conversion impact per dollar from a 3D/AR viewer that addresses size and fit doubt directly.

Yes, and for modular or made-to-order catalogs that's often the eventual end state: the configurator handles option selection, and true-to-scale AR preview handles the fit question the configurator alone doesn't answer. Many stores add the viewer first because it's faster to implement, then layer a configurator on top as variant complexity grows.

In general terms, not specific prices: a configurator's cost scales with the number of options and variants it has to represent, because each combination needs source assets and rules, which pushes it toward enterprise pricing and longer implementation. A 3D/AR viewer's cost scales with the number of products, not the number of option combinations, which is why it's typically the lighter, faster option to get live.

Some do, but AR is often bolted on rather than the core feature, and true-to-scale accuracy across every possible configuration is a harder engineering problem than AR for a fixed product. If AR-driven size confidence is the main goal, a dedicated 3D/AR viewer built around that use case will usually get there faster than a configurator with AR as a secondary feature.

Not necessarily. If the requests are mostly about fabric or color on an otherwise fixed piece, a viewer with simple swatch selection often satisfies that need. A configurator becomes the right answer when the piece is genuinely built to order around the shopper's choices, not just displayed in different finishes.