Revit Links vs. Groups: Which Is Better?

Introduction

Sometimes, we encounter projects where certain construction elements are repeated, whether twice or hundreds of times. To minimize the effort needed for updating changes, several strategies can be implemented to work more efficiently, consistently, and, most importantly, with less effort.

Key aspects to consider before choosing Revit links or groups for your project.

At Modelical, we don’t have a single preferred solution, but we do thoroughly analyze the type of project we are working on and the kind of elements being repeated.

As suggested by the title, this article aims to compare the use of groups within Revit with the use of links. However, there is an even simpler unit: Revit families with their respective nesting. It would be absurd to compare families versus links, but comparing families and groups is a reasonable discussion.

At the beginning of any project, we always evaluate certain aspects to determine workflow decisions, which also guide our choice between groups and links:

Model Performance: If a solution is geometrically perfect but makes a task take three times longer, it’s no longer perfect. Poorly performing models are difficult to work with and, above all, are SLOW.

Collaborative Use: Often, multiple people work on the same project simultaneously, and it is important to adopt a solution that does not interfere with the workflow.
Editing and Change Management: Everything usually works "fine" the first time you set it up—whether it’s modelling, a database, or any other task. The challenge arises when managing changes, as there may be limitations, excessive workload on the software, or a lack of control over them.

Visibility Control and Organization: Just as we discussed the "perfect solution" earlier, the visualization of elements is a key factor in decision-making, especially if they need to be included in drawings for legibility. But it also matters in the modelling process itself. Being able to organize elements in schedules, apply visibility filters, etc., always makes work smoother and more controlled.

Coding: In a BIM environment, parameter input is mandatory. The chosen solution must align with the project’s coding requirements and should be considered from the start.

Phases and Design: The project phase can determine whether one option is preferable over another and may even justify switching approaches as the project evolves. Some solutions are more agile at a low level of detail but insufficient when higher precision is required in later phases. We must also evaluate whether the adopted solution is compatible with phased use within a specific Revit model, if applicable.

User Experience: Sometimes, the best solution is the one most familiar to those working within the model. Adopting a new workflow can involve a steep learning curve and potentially poor outcomes, so it’s important to carefully weigh the implications before imposing a solution—always considering both the project’s needs and the team’s capabilities.

These aspects are common to almost any modelling decision, but in addition, for work involving repeated elements, we include the following specific considerations:

Duplication: This seems like the most obvious aspect when elements need to be repeated. But how does it work in each case? What are the limitations and strengths of each option?

Set Positioning: In collaborative projects involving multiple companies, real-world coordinates are typically used, requiring precise positioning for each element.

Editing and Managing Families: Whether using groups or links, modelling relies on families, so understanding their functionality within each solution is key.

Constraints and Warnings: Specifically, groups have certain constraints that also generate warnings. This can be tedious when modeling or even make them incompatible with a specific required use.

After outlining the key aspects to consider when choosing between groups and links, we present a summary of their strengths and limitations. We hope this helps you make informed decisions in your projects.

Aspecto	Groups	Links
Model Performance	✔️ Very agile for small and medium-sized projects, where changes are more localized. ✖️Less optimized for large projects.	✔️Highly optimized for large and complex projects. ✖️ In small projects, external management can be unnecessarily complex. And in large projects, excessive linking can slow down the model.
Collaborative Use	✔️ Enables quick collaboration within a shared file without external links. ✖️ Limited for simultaneous collaboration.	✔️ Ideal for multi-user collaboration as they are independent. ✖️ Dependent on correct path configurations, which can cause issues if incorrect.
Editing & Change Management	✔️ Allows direct editing within the main model. ✖️When a change is needed, all group instances must be updated, which can be slow for large groups.	✔️ Updates only need to be processed once by reloading the link. ✖️ Total independence from the main model. No changes in the link will affect the main model and vice versa. Managing an external file is required.
Visibility Control	✔️Same visualization as the main model, with no need for additional templates. ✖️Limited visibility control, such as the inability to modify an element's visualization individually, and difficulties with filters or nested elements.	✔️ Limited visibility control, such as the inability to modify an element's visualization individually, and difficulties with filters or nested elements. ✖️Advanced visibility settings can be confusing and often require frequent manual adjustments.
Coding	✔️Although the group is the same, elements can be coded independently if parameters are properly configured. ✖️Revit's default parameters cannot be modified for independent coding.	✖️If a duplicated link is used, the parameter values remain the same, making it impossible to differentiate, for example, the location of elements through their code.
Phases and Design	✖️All elements in a group must belong to the same phase, limiting its use in projects with multiple construction phases.	✔️Properly mapped to the phases of the main model.
Duplication	✔️ Easy to duplicate and adapt within the same file. ✖️ Duplications can lead to disorganization if not managed with clear naming and logical structures.	✔️ Can be duplicated and reused across projects. ✖️The link's location must be properly managed to follow shared coordinates.
Family Editing	✔️Allows editing and updating all instances at once, ensuring consistency between the group and the rest of the model. ✖️New family types cannot be created directly within a group; they must be created outside the group and then updated. Changes made outside the group may not sync correctly.	✔️Generated and coded independently without any errors related to being in a link. ✖️ Any changes to geometry or parameters must be reloaded in all linked instances containing the family, making management more complex.
Set Positioning	✔️Can move between levels without issues, but must reference them as they are shared with the main model. ✖️Cannot have its own level and grid system.	✔️ No positioning restrictions, as they have their own level system. ✖️ Risk of misalignment due to the lack of restrictions.
Warnings	✔️Indicates if there is an error within the group that makes it incompatible with the intended modification. ✖️Warnings appear for each duplicated group instance, making updates cumbersome.	✔️The only warning that may appear is related to positioning if placed using shared coordinates.

Conclusion

When no tool provides a perfect solution, it is up to us as BIM Managers or coordinators to define a strategy that works for the specific project and team.

If this strategy compromises aspects of the BEP, it should be documented accordingly, and coordination with all stakeholders is essential.

Taking the time to think before acting will always positively impact project development.