All graphics copyright 2018 Daniel Lis, www.composerstoolbox.com By so ware, by method of payment 1 Sibelius (non- 1 1 3 2 5 subscrip on) - 48 5 Finale (paid) - 45
Sibelius (subscrip on) - 26 48 15 MuseScore (free) - 15
Dorico - 5
Lilypond - 5
Finale (free) - 3
26 Encore (paid) - 2
MuseScore (paid) - 1
Noteflight (paid) - 1
45 Noteworthy Composer - 1
By so ware (all methods of payment) 1 1 1 5 2 Sibelius - 74 5 Finale - 48
16 MuseScore - 16
Dorico - 5
74 Lilypond - 5
Encore (paid) - 2
Noteflight - 1
Noteworthy 48 Composer - 1 No on - 1
Percentage of users repor ng strengths of so ware - Sibelius and Finale 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% Sibelius
Finale 20%
10%
0%
Speed Playback Note input Lyrics input Ease of use Making parts Affordability Expor ng XML Impor ng XML Technical support Patches released Engraving (general) MIDI keyboard input Expor ng MIDI files Expor ng audio files Func onality online Documenta on/manual Worthwhile investment Community of fellow users Graphic design/manipula on Expor ng score files (egs. PDF) Working with sample libraries Ease of use as a music educator Number and quality of features Pricing structure (egs. single sale
Dynamics/ar cula ons/markings input Func onality on a tablet or mobile device Learning curve when learning the so ware Func onality on a laptop or desktop computer Compa bility and interac on with other programs
Forma ng and crea on of advanced and extended nota on
Percentage of users repor ng strengths of so ware - Musescore, Lilypond, and Dorico
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% Musescore
Lilypond 20% Dorico
10%
0%
Speed Playback Note input Lyrics input Ease of use Making parts Affordability Expor ng XML Impor ng XML Technical support Patches released Engraving (general) MIDI keyboard input Expor ng MIDI files Expor ng audio files Func onality online Documenta on/manual Worthwhile investment Community of fellow users Graphic design/manipula on Expor ng score files (egs. PDF) Working with sample libraries Ease of use as a music educator Number and quality of features Pricing structure (egs. single sale
Dynamics/ar cula ons/markings input Func onality on a tablet or mobile device Learning curve when learning the so ware Func onality on a laptop or desktop computer Compa bility and interac on with other programs
Forma ng and crea on of advanced and extended nota on
Percentage of users repor ng weaknesses of so ware - Sibelius and Finale 50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% Sibelius
Finale 10%
5%
0%
Speed Playback Note input Lyrics input Ease of use Making parts Affordability Expor ng XML Impor ng XML Technical support Patches released Engraving (general) MIDI keyboard input Expor ng MIDI files Expor ng audio files Func onality online Documenta on/manual Worthwhile investment Community of fellow users Graphic design/manipula on Expor ng score files (egs. PDF) Working with sample libraries Ease of use as a music educator Number and quality of features Pricing structure (egs. single sale
Dynamics/ar cula ons/markings input Func onality on a tablet or mobile device Learning curve when learning the so ware Func onality on a laptop or desktop computer Compa bility and interac on with other programs
Forma ng and crea on of advanced and extended nota on
Percentage of users repor ng weaknesses of so ware - Musescore, Lilypond, and Dorico
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% Musescore
Lilypond 20% Dorico
10%
0%
Speed Playback Note input Lyrics input Ease of use Making parts Affordability Expor ng XML Impor ng XML Technical support Patches released Engraving (general) MIDI keyboard input Expor ng MIDI files Expor ng audio files Func onality online Documenta on/manual Worthwhile investment Community of fellow users Graphic design/manipula on Expor ng score files (egs. PDF) Working with sample libraries Ease of use as a music educator Number and quality of features Pricing structure (egs. single sale
Dynamics/ar cula ons/markings input Func onality on a tablet or mobile device Learning curve when learning the so ware Func onality on a laptop or desktop computer Compa bility and interac on with other programs
Forma ng and crea on of advanced and extended nota on
What is your user experience with the Would you recommend this program Is this program buggy? (A lower score program? to another musician? means more buggy/less stable) 5.00 4.80 5.00 4.80 4.40 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.60 4.50 4.20 4.06 4.60 4.40 4.60 4.00 4.32 4.38 4.00 4.40 4.40 4.13 4.13 3.72 4.20 3.80 3.96 What is your user 4.20 Would you recommend 3.54 Is this program buggy? (A 4.00 3.60 experience with the 4.00 this program to another lower score means more 3.80 program? 3.80 musician? 3.40 buggy/less stable) 3.60 3.60 3.20
Finale Dorico Sibelius Dorico Finale Finale Lilypond Lilypond Sibelius Sibelius Dorico Musescore Lilypond Musescore Musescore
Do you want/intend to move to a Did you move to this so ware from Number of users who le this different program in the near future? another program? so ware for another program 100% 56% 37 60% 100% 40 80% 50% 35 80% 62% 30 40% 27% 60% 25 30% 23% Do you want/intend to 38% 38% 20 13 13 Did you move to this Number of users who le 20% move to a different 40% 15 7 10 5 4 program in the near so ware from another 3 3 this so ware for another 10% 0% 0% 20% 5 future? program? program 0% 0% 0
Finale Other Finale Dorico Dorico Finale Sibelius Encore Cubase Sibelius Lilypond Sibelius Lilypond Musescore Noteflight Musescore Musescore Noteworthy
Number of users considering moving Professions of users to this program 160 136 50 44 140 40 120 98 30 100 93 20 15 Number of users 11 9 80 72 5 considering moving to this 65 10 2 1 60 58 program 60 53 0 40 32 40 28 28 26 20 Dorico Finale Other 12 Sibelius Lilypond 20 10 9 7 Number of users Musescore Noteflight 0
Editor Lyricist Arranger Engraver Publisher Composer Freelancer Conductor Orchestrator Adjudicator
Professional musician Music educator (K-12) Professor (collegiate) Student (pre-college) Instrumentalist/vocalist Arts/music administrator Non-professional musician
Student (pursuing undergraduate or