The evidence base
The research
~60 competitors mapped · 12 full dossiers · 7 landscape scans · 4 geographies · 2 independent strategic reviews. Everything below is browsable, cross-linked, and backlinked.
Competitors
12Twelve full decision briefs — coverage, voice-of-user, talk-vs-ship gap, can-we-win.
BuildPass — Competitor Decision Brief closest analog to our own motion — a template that validates the wedge, not yet an occupant of it; watch, do not rebuild Civils.ai — Competitor Decision Brief the clearest direct overlap with our tender wedge so far — same documents, same buyer, but quantity-led and stopping short of cost; flank on the commercial/benchmarking side they cannot reach Document Crunch — Competitor Decision Brief an upstream neighbour on contract risk, not a competitor for our recovery wedge — but now Trimble-owned, so watch the bundling risk Fieldwire — Competitor Decision Brief ride the open API and flank the commercial-money gap; do not fight the plan-and-task core Kreo — Competitor Decision Brief cost-side neighbour, not a target — flank or partner, never rebuild OpenSpace — Competitor Decision Brief a build-on-top neighbour, not a rival; ride its data, never fight its capture PlanRadar — Competitor Decision Brief build alongside it on the commercial side; do not fight it on defects or in EU SaaS distribution Procore — Competitor Decision Brief avoid head-on; this is the distribution-owner that bundles features for free — frame it as the walk-away risk for our other plays Pype — Competitor Decision Brief a precedent, not a target — the AI submittal tool already absorbed by the platform owner Raken — Competitor Decision Brief build alongside and flank the commercial gap Sablono — Competitor Decision Brief consume as the delay-evidence data source — partner, not competitor, for our claims wedge Trunk Tools — Competitor Decision Brief closest thing to what we would build — ride the doc-knowledge layer, flank on the commercial/claims money it does not touch
Landscape scans
7Category-by-category sweeps of the field.
Claims / Delay analytics / Forensic scheduling / Entitlement — the thesis test Field / Daily-Log / Site-Diary landscape — the commoditised capture layer (Raken-class) capture is table-stakes and racing to free; the money layer is empty here too — confirms the wedge sits above this category, not in it Landscape scan — Commercial management / QS / cost control (areas 14-15, 21) this is our exact buyer's existing software — and it stops, almost without exception, at variation valuation / CVR / final account, one rung short of delay/disruption entitlement recovery; the QS commercial office is well-served on book-keeping but underserved by AI, and cross-firm historical cost (area 21) is empty even among the new AI benchmarking entrants (all single-firm by design) Landscape scan — Estimating & Takeoff (area 2) the AI-takeoff category is owned by AI-native incumbents and computer-vision is commoditising; cross-firm historical-cost benchmarking (area 21) is empty across the entire category, exactly as it was for Kreo Landscape scan — Materials / Programme / Handover / O&M downstream/adjacent; two feed our claim evidence, none reach the money layer Platforms / System-of-Record (Procore-class incumbents) — landscape scan distribution-owners — Archetype D / AVOID head-on, same logic as Procore. None yet build toward claims-recovery (15) or cross-firm historical-cost (21); collective walk-away risk is the real output here. Reality capture / AR / progress verification — landscape scan
Geographic beachheads
4Four-country scan — where the wedge is most winnable.
🌐 Geo beachhead comparison — UK / US / Canada / Australia Australia — Beachhead Scan for the Commercial Memory Layer VIABLE (claims-culture is best-in-class; competitive whitespace is closing fast with AU-native AI claims startups) GEO SCAN — CANADA (Commercial Memory Layer beachhead candidate) US Beachhead Scan — Commercial Memory Layer for Mid-Market Commercial & Fit-Out Contractors
Synthesis & method
6The cross-cutting analysis, the problem map, and how the research was run.
Competitor deep-research method & tooling Construction-tech competitor landscape — synthesis and build brief Construction-tech problem map (the shared grid) Cross-competitor working notes — coverage heatmap + opportunity matrix Micro-entrants cohort — three AI-native entrants too thin for solo briefs capture is commoditising; the money-recovery layer is the contested ground, not yet owned Opportunity Lens — how we classify a competitor for our play
Source research
2The raw upstream research the program was built on.
The decision
1The internal call: services-first, Australia-first, fund Stage 0.