Methodology

Last reviewed November 11, 2025

Scoring Methodology

Each CMMS platform in our comparison is evaluated against eight weighted factors. Scores are normalized on a 100-point scale. We combine first-hand product research, vendor documentation, and third-party review data to ensure comprehensive and accurate assessments.

Weighted Criteria

Ease of use
25%

Intuitive navigation, minimal training requirements, user adoption rates, and overall UX quality. We prioritize platforms that technicians can learn quickly.

Mobile experience
20%

Feature parity with desktop, offline capabilities, app store ratings, barcode scanning, photo capture, and mobile UX. Critical for field service teams.

AI & automation
15%

Predictive maintenance, intelligent routing, automated scheduling, anomaly detection, and other AI features that reduce manual effort.

Implementation speed
10%

Average time from signup to productive use. Includes data migration, configuration, training, and deployment complexity.

Reporting & dashboards
10%

Dashboard quality, report customization, analytics depth, real-time visibility, and export capabilities. Enables data-driven decisions.

Breadth of modules
10%

Work orders, preventive maintenance, asset management, inventory, purchasing, vendor management, and other core CMMS capabilities.

Integrations & API
5%

ERP integration, IoT connectivity, accounting software, API depth, webhooks, and pre-built integrations that reduce manual data entry.

Pricing transparency
5%

Published pricing, clear tier structures, no hidden fees, transparent per-user costs, and total cost of ownership clarity.

How We Score

Each factor is scored on a 0-100 scale based on platform capabilities, verified user feedback, and comparative analysis. Scores are multiplied by their weights and summed to produce an overall score. For example, a platform scoring 90 on ease of use (25% weight) contributes 22.5 points to the total.

We normalize scores to account for varying data availability across platforms. When direct measurements aren't available (e.g., implementation timelines), we use comparative analysis against platforms with verified data. Our methodology prioritizes transparency—you can see the exact scoring breakdown on each vendor page.

Data Sources

Scoring inputs include multiple data sources to ensure comprehensive evaluation:

  • Vendor Documentation: Official product docs, pricing pages, implementation guides, and API documentation
  • Public Pricing: Published tier structures, per-user costs, feature comparisons, and total cost of ownership data
  • Third-Party Reviews: G2, Capterra, and GetApp ratings; verified user feedback; app store ratings (iOS and Android)
  • Product Demos: Hands-on testing of interfaces, mobile apps, core workflows, and feature discovery

We prioritize measurements that reflect day-to-day technician usage and real-world adoption. Feature checklists matter less than whether technicians actually use the platform effectively. For more details, see our data sources page.

Update Cadence

Scores are reviewed and updated quarterly based on product changes, vendor updates, pricing changes, and verified user feedback. Major vendor releases, significant feature additions, or pricing restructuring may trigger ad-hoc updates. Each vendor page indicates its last update date, and our scoring methodology remains consistent across updates to enable trend analysis.

What triggers updates?

  • Major product releases with new features or UI changes
  • Pricing structure changes or tier modifications
  • Significant changes to mobile apps or core workflows
  • Verified user feedback indicating platform improvements or issues
  • New security certifications or compliance updates

We maintain version control of our scoring methodology to track changes over time. This ensures transparency and enables readers to understand how platforms have evolved in our rankings.