How we rank software and make money

By Neil Lokare, Founder & Editor, FieldServiceScoutLast updated October 5, 2026

Not FieldScout. FieldServiceScout (fieldservicescout.com) is an independent site that compares field-service software. We have no connection to any product or company called “FieldScout.”

The short version: our reviews and comparisons are based on vendors' published pricing pages and documentation. We haven't done hands-on testing of any product. “Best” pages either rank platforms with the scoring formula described below or match one pick to each buying situation, and commission isn't part of either. We earn a commission from some vendors and nothing from others. Prices show the date we checked them.

How we rank

“Best” pages. A ranked “best” page is a numbered list of up to 10 platforms, ordered by a match score from 0 to 100. The score comes from the same scoring engine as our Shop Matcher, run against one fixed shop profile that the page states: the trade, the number of technicians, the monthly card volume and, on some pages, a budget per technician. The Quick answer at the top of the page lists the same platforms in the same order.

Situation pages. Some “best” and “alternatives” pages match one pick to each buying situation, using only published pricing and plan features. They show no match score or numeric rank.

Which platforms are eligible:

Trade. Only platforms that sell into the page's trade are ranked. A pest-control platform isn't ranked on an HVAC page. Platforms that don't focus on particular trades are eligible everywhere.
Page scope. Some pages narrow the list further: for example, to residential and mixed platforms, or by leaving out the product an “alternatives” page is about.
Dealbreakers. Some pages name must-have features. A platform whose published materials don't list a must-have feature, either included or as an add-on, is removed from that page rather than scored lower. One page (HVAC mobile apps) also requires an Android field app.

How the match score is calculated. Match score = 55% feature fit + 23% budget fit + 22% segment fit, rounded to a whole number out of 100.

Feature fit (55%). Each page lists the features that matter for it. For each feature, a platform gets full credit if its pricing page or documentation lists it as included, 45% credit if it's a paid add-on, and no credit if it isn't listed. Credits are averaged using the page's weights. Where a page emphasizes certain features, the basics most platforms share (scheduling, dispatch, the technician mobile app, invoicing, card payments, QuickBooks sync) count for less, and the features that separate platforms on that page count for more. For example, on Best HVAC Software, service agreements count five times as much as each basic feature, and commercial work counts nearly four times as much. A feature gets credit if any of the platform's plans offers it. The plan you'd need is shown in each page's feature labels (for example, “MAX-only” or “Connect+”), but it doesn't change the score.
Budget fit (23%). Most “best” pages don't set a budget. On those pages, every platform gets the same neutral budget fit (70%), so budget doesn't change the order. On pages that set a budget per technician, a platform whose modeled all-in monthly cost per technician (see below) is at or under the budget gets full budget fit. A platform over the budget loses 1.1 points of budget fit for every 1% over, down to zero. For example, 10% over budget scores 89%. Platforms without a comparable all-in price (quote-only and software-only vendors, explained below) start at the neutral 70%. On a page with a budget, that 70% is then capped at the lowest budget fit of any priced platform ranked for the page, whether or not that platform makes the top 10, and their match score is recalculated. So a platform with no public price never scores higher on budget fit than a priced platform on the same page. The cap only lowers scores, never raises them, and it isn't applied if no platform ranked for the page has a comparable all-in price.
Segment fit (22%). Each page and each platform is classed as residential, commercial or mixed. We class platforms from how vendors describe their own customers. A platform whose segment matches the page's exactly gets full credit. If either the page or the platform is mixed, the platform gets 82%. A residential platform on a commercial page, or the reverse, gets 30%.
Ties. Platforms with the same score are listed alphabetically by name.

How published pricing feeds in. Pricing affects the ranking only through budget fit. For each platform with list prices, we model a monthly all-in cost for the page's shop profile:

the cheapest plan available at the page's team size, billed annually;
the vendor's published fees for extra users;
card processing at the vendor's published rates and fees on the page's monthly card volume. We assume 55% of card payments are in person, 30% are online invoices and 15% are Amex, commercial or keyed cards, with a $300 average ticket for per-transaction fees. Where a vendor doesn't publish a separate rate for Amex or keyed cards, we use its online rate and say so.

That modeled cost is shown on each platform's card. It's an estimate from list prices, not a vendor quote.

Quote-only vendors. Many vendors don't publish prices. We label them “Quote only” or “Pricing not publicly listed” and don't show, estimate or invent a dollar figure for them. They get the budget fit for unpriced platforms described above, so where they rank depends mostly on feature fit and segment fit. A high rank for a quote-only vendor says nothing about its price.

Software-only vendors. Some vendors publish software prices but not their card-processing fees. We show their software price labeled “software only; card fees not published” with the month we priced it. We don't add an all-in total or a per-technician cost for them. We never call them the cheapest or lowest option, and cost tables list them after platforms with a full all-in price. They get the same budget fit as quote-only vendors. The same applies when a vendor doesn't publish the price of the extra users a page's team size would need. Plans priced by jobs or routes rather than by users are marked “not comparable per tech.”

What isn't part of the score:

Commission. The scoring engine doesn't read affiliate status. Vendors we earn nothing from, such as FieldEdge, BuildOps, ServiceTrade, JobNimbus and AccuLynx, are scored with the same formula as vendors we earn from.
Usability. We haven't tested any product hands-on, so nothing in the score rates ease of use, the field app or support. Every platform is labeled “Usability: not yet tested.”
Payment for placement. We don't accept it.

Comparison pages. Comparison pages put two platforms side by side and don't give a score. When both platforms have a comparable all-in price, the bottom line names the one with the lower modeled cost for the stated team size and card volume. When either doesn't, the bottom line says so and doesn't name a cheaper option.

The Shop Matcher and calculator. The matcher uses the same scoring engine with your own answers: team size, card volume, the features you need, dealbreakers, residential or commercial work, and budget. Its vendor data may not yet match the dated pricing on our comparison pages. Where they differ, use the dated pricing on the comparison page.

How pricing is sourced and dated

Source: each vendor's official pricing page, plus the vendor's own help-center documentation for processing fees (for example, Housecall Pro's payment processing article). We don't use third-party price lists, reseller quotes or estimated prices.
What “Pricing checked” means: pages with prices include a “Pricing checked” list. For each platform on the page, it shows the pricing status (published list prices, quote only, or pricing not publicly listed), the date we checked, and a link to the vendor's page. A full date, such as “checked on October 5, 2026”, means we loaded the vendor's pricing page that day and the figures on our page come from that check. A month followed by “(not re-checked)”, such as “July 2026 (not re-checked)”, means the figures come from an earlier check that month and weren't part of the October 5, 2026 check. The date shows when we looked. Prices may have changed since then.
Checked on October 5, 2026: Jobber, Housecall Pro, ServiceTitan, Workiz, FieldPulse, Service Fusion, FieldEdge, JobNimbus, AccuLynx, BuildOps and ServiceTrade.
Earlier checks, not re-checked on October 5, 2026: ServiceM8, GorillaDesk, Kickserv and RazorSync (July 2026); LMN, Aspire, FieldRoutes, PestPac and Briostack (August 2026).
Archived: for the October 5, 2026 check we saved each pricing page's HTML, rendered text and a full-page screenshot. We recorded every plan, price, user allowance, add-on and fee in a source table with its URL and fetch date. Pages show these screenshots under “Pricing page captures.”
Only what's visible: if a price appears in a page's hidden code but isn't shown to visitors, we don't publish it. Promotional prices are noted but left out of cost math.
Not published means not published: when a vendor doesn't publish something (a seat price, a card-reader rate, an add-on price), we say “not published” and give the date. We don't fill the gap with a guess.
Labeled assumptions: cost figures state their assumptions (team size, monthly card volume, payment mix and average ticket).

At the October 5, 2026 check, 2 of those 11 vendors published list prices: Jobber and Housecall Pro. In the earlier checks, ServiceM8, GorillaDesk, Kickserv, RazorSync and LMN published software prices but not card-processing fees, and Aspire, FieldRoutes, PestPac and Briostack were quote-only.

What “tested” means here, and what we haven't done

What we did: read and archived each vendor's pricing page and the relevant documentation. We recorded plans, prices, user limits, add-ons, processing rates and the plan each feature is listed on in our source table. We built the cost comparisons and match scores as scripts with stated assumptions and the weights above.

What we haven't done (as of October 5, 2026):

No hands-on testing. We haven't signed up for trials, used the products or run payments through them.
No vendor demos or sales calls, and no written quotes.
No customer interviews or surveys.

So our pages make no claims about ease of use, mobile apps, support quality, reliability or implementation. Every “How we tested” section describes exactly what we did: read published pricing and documentation, and score it.

Affiliate relationships

FieldServiceScout earns money through affiliate (referral) programs. If you sign up with some vendors through our links, the vendor may pay us. You pay the same price either way. We don't sell placements, leads or your contact details.

We may earn a commission from: Housecall Pro, Jobber, ServiceTitan, FieldPulse, Service Fusion and Workiz.
We earn nothing from: FieldEdge, BuildOps, GorillaDesk, Kickserv, RazorSync, ServiceM8, AccuLynx, JobNimbus, Aspire, LMN, FieldRoutes, PestPac, Briostack and ServiceTrade.

Each page's disclosure line names the vendors on that page we may earn from.

Who writes this

Neil Lokare, Founder & Editor, FieldServiceScout. Neil writes and edits the comparisons on this site and is responsible for the methodology on this page. Pages aren't written or reviewed by the vendors they cover.

Questions or spotted an error? hello@fieldservicescout.com