ScanLedger publishes document-based reviews of 3D scanners for makers, product designers and engineering teams who are choosing hardware and need to compare stated capabilities before they buy.
What we publish
Each review on ScanLedger covers a single, specifically named scanner model and version. We work from the manufacturer’s own product pages, technical datasheets, spec sheets and published documentation, and we cite the source next to every specification we report. Where a manufacturer publishes a range, a condition, or a caveat alongside a number, we carry that qualification into the review rather than reducing it to a single headline figure.
What we do not do
ScanLedger does not run its own scanning tests, does not operate a metrology lab, and does not claim hands-on time with the devices it reviews. We say this plainly in every review’s evidence note and in our Editorial Policy, rather than implying a bench test that did not happen. A review built from documentation is a different kind of evidence than a review built from a physical unit, and we think readers are better served by knowing which one they’re reading.
How reviews are structured
Every review follows the same shape: who the scanner suits, how its scanning technology works, a sourced specification table, its documented limitations, its software and workflow requirements, comparable alternatives, and a closing verdict with a numbered source ledger. The structure is consistent so that two reviews can be compared section by section, not just skimmed for a star rating we don’t award.
How this is funded
If a review contains affiliate links, they will be identified in that review. A purchase through such a link may earn ScanLedger a commission at no extra cost to you. Affiliate relationships do not change which scanners we cover or what we report about their documented specifications and limitations — see the Editorial Policy for how coverage decisions are made.
Who writes this
Reviews are published under the ScanLedger Editorial byline rather than an individual name, because the work is document analysis against manufacturer sources, not personal field testing that would warrant an individual tester’s credentials. If you have a correction or a source we should look at, see Contact.