“Just send the file” sounds simple until the receiving party opens a format that can’t carry what they actually need — full model intelligence, editable geometry, or cross-platform readability. The three most common handoff formats each trade one of those for another, and picking the wrong one for a given handoff is a quiet, recurring source of rework.

RVT preserves full model intelligence but is locked to Revit. IFC is open and vendor-neutral, built for exchanging BIM data across software, but is largely read-only and doesn’t guarantee every data point transfers. DWG is the most universal format for 2D exchange but lacks full BIM intelligence. The right choice depends on what the recipient does with the file.

Who this is for

This is for architects and engineers deciding what file format to hand off to a consultant, contractor, or outsourced drafting partner — not a general BIM interoperability lecture, but a specific answer to which format fits which handoff situation.

RVT: full model intelligence, locked to Revit

A BIM file format guide is specific about when RVT is the right choice: when “the receiving team is going to work in Revit and needs access to the native model data” — continuous design development, multidisciplinary coordination within Revit, anything where the receiving party needs to keep editing the actual parametric model, not just view it. The tradeoff is named plainly in the same source’s comparison: RVT “preserves full model intelligence” but is “vendor-locked to Revit.” If the receiving party doesn’t have Revit, or needs to work across a mixed-software environment, RVT alone doesn’t solve that [CLIENT TO CONFIRM — confirm Revit version compatibility with the receiving party before handoff, since newer RVT files can’t always be opened in older Revit versions].

IFC: open and neutral, but not everything survives the trip

A reference on BIM file formats draws the core distinction clearly: proprietary formats like RVT are “only readable by their own, and other permitted, software,” while non-proprietary formats like IFC are “vendor-neutral,” meaning “they can be read and edited by any type of software” in principle. IFC exists specifically to solve the cross-platform exchange problem — the format selection guide reviewed here recommends it “when different software needs to exchange information in BIM,” particularly between firms on incompatible platforms.

But IFC has real limits that are easy to overlook. The reference source notes that IFC files function largely as “a read-only format and not meant to be edited” once exported, which limits collaborative modification after the fact. And the format guide is direct about data fidelity: “not all data will be correctly transferred” in an IFC export, meaning a model that looks complete in its native format can lose specific properties, custom parameters, or detail in the IFC conversion [CLIENT TO CONFIRM — IFC fidelity varies by software, IFC version, and export settings; confirm what gets lost in a specific export before relying on it for a critical handoff].

DWG: universal, but it’s not a BIM format

DWG, despite being an Autodesk-proprietary format, is described in the same reference as “the format most universally accepted by viewing/authoring programs,” and it can carry both 2D information and 3D objects — more versatile than its reputation as “just a CAD format” suggests. The format guide confirms this fits a specific use case: “exchanging CAD drawings, survey data, 2D documents, and graphics.” Its named limitation is equally specific: DWG “lacks the ability to represent the full spectrum of information contained within a BIM model” — it’s a good fit for drawing exchange, not a substitute for a true BIM handoff when model intelligence matters.

Most projects need more than one format

Both sources reviewed here converge on the same practical conclusion: there’s no single “best” format, because each one solves a different handoff problem. The format guide puts it directly — most projects benefit from “using multiple formats strategically rather than selecting one universally.” A project might hand off RVT to a consultant working in Revit, export IFC for a contractor’s coordination software, and provide DWG for a surveyor or a jurisdiction that only accepts 2D CAD — all from the same underlying model, each serving a different recipient’s actual need.

A simple way to decide which format to send

Rather than defaulting to whatever format the model happens to be in, the practical question is: what will the receiving party actually do with the file once they have it? If they’re going to keep editing the model in Revit, RVT is the right call, software compatibility permitting. If they’re on a different platform entirely, or the file needs to remain accessible regardless of future software changes, IFC is the better fit, with the caveat that it’s worth a quick check on what survives the export for anything that matters. If the recipient just needs drawings, survey data, or 2D content — a surveyor, a jurisdiction reviewing a permit set, a consultant who only needs reference geometry — DWG covers it without the overhead of a full BIM handoff.

The mistake to avoid is treating this as a one-time decision for the whole project. A single model can and often should go out in different formats to different recipients, each matched to what that specific recipient needs, rather than picking one format and hoping it works for everyone downstream.

The same thinking applies to how a project’s standards manual should document preferred handoff formats by recipient type — see building a CAD standards manual your outsourced team can actually follow for where that belongs in the documentation.

If you’re not sure which format to request for a specific handoff — to a consultant, a contractor, or a jurisdiction — Request a Scope Review and describe what the receiving party needs to do with the file; get back a specific recommendation rather than a default answer.