The best CAFM software is the platform that matches the work your facilities team actually owns. For multi-site operational FM involving contractors, planned and reactive maintenance, assets and cost control, expansive is a strong starting point. MRI Evolution is better aligned with configurable enterprise FM, Planon with broad real-estate and workplace requirements, and Joblogic with engineer-led service delivery. The right choice should be proven against real workflows, data and total operating cost, not a feature count.
The difficult part is not finding software that can raise a work order. It is finding a platform that can follow responsibility from the person reporting a fault to the FM team, engineer, contractor, approver and finance team without somebody rebuilding the story in email.
A typical requirement begins innocently enough: control planned maintenance, make reactive jobs visible and keep certificates together. Then reality arrives. One site uses an internal engineer, another uses three contractors, finance wants purchase-order control, compliance needs evidence of remedial work, and the operations director wants a dashboard that does not require a ceremonial cleansing of the spreadsheet first.
That is why “best CAFM” cannot sensibly mean the product with the most modules. CAFM, CMMS, field-service management and IWMS platforms overlap, but they start from different operational centres. A maintenance-first system may be excellent for engineers and still leave gaps around property, contractors or portfolio reporting. A broad IWMS may connect real estate, space, sustainability and maintenance, but it also asks more of data, governance, integration and implementation.
The useful question is therefore not “Which product is best?” It is “Which product fits the work we need to control, the users who must adopt it and the implementation we can realistically sustain?”
This comparison assesses documented product scope against the decisions UK facilities buyers need to make. It is based on suppliers’ public UK product, pricing and support material reviewed on 22 September 2026; it is not a hands-on product test or a substitute for technical, commercial and legal due diligence.
The assessment uses seven practical criteria:
Four platforms were selected because they represent four genuinely different buying routes available to UK teams. This is a focused shortlist, not a claim that every other credible supplier has ceased to exist.
expansive is a strong starting point in this shortlist for an in-house, multi-site team whose main problem is operational control across maintenance, assets, contractors, evidence and spend. Its centre of gravity is CAFM rather than corporate real-estate administration, which matters when the brief is to make facilities work run properly rather than launch a wider workplace transformation.
The public platform overview documents reactive and quoted-work workflows, a digital asset register, lifecycle and budgeting functions, asset scanning, planned-maintenance calendars, centralised documentation, remedial actions, automatic reminders, an engineer application, RAMS and SLA management, QR-code access, reporting, cost control and invoicing. expansive also publishes current release notes, including 2026 additions around rate cards, automated cost approvals, contractor rate management, invoice cycling and parts costing. Those capabilities point to a product designed around the joins between work, suppliers and commercial control, not merely the existence of a work-order screen.
That orientation may suit retail, leisure, care, hospitality, banking and other distributed estates where a small central team coordinates many sites and third parties. Local users need a simple route to report an issue; central FM needs to know what happened, whether the response met the SLA, what it cost, what evidence was supplied and whether the same asset is becoming a regular contributor to the maintenance budget.
The trade-off is scope. A buyer needing extensive lease administration, CAD-led space planning, workplace booking or a global sustainability data programme should compare expansive with an IWMS on those specific requirements. It would be unfair to mark a focused CAFM platform down for not being a different category of product, but equally unwise to assume “CAFM” covers every corporate property process.
Where expansive tends to fit: in-house, multi-site FM teams with mixed internal and contracted delivery, substantial planned and reactive work, compliance evidence, quote approvals and cost oversight.
What to verify in the demo: What to verify in the demo: ask for a clear breakdown of how pricing changes with users, sites and required features, including any setup costs. expansive uses tailored pricing rather than a flat public tariff, so compare the full quoted cost for your actual scope rather than a headline monthly figure.
MRI Evolution is a strong contender where the requirement is still recognisably facilities management, but the operating environment involves complex portfolios, service lines, roles, workflows and integrations. MRI positions Evolution as a platform for assets, maintenance, compliance and service delivery across multi-site and enterprise settings.
Its UK product material describes planned and reactive maintenance, automated scheduling, real-time work tracking, mobile access, contractor management, compliance records, audit trails, reporting, data segregation and connections to ERP, finance, property, IoT and reporting tools. MRI also places Evolution within a broader ecosystem that includes energy management, an IoT hub, space management and digital-workforce functions.
The practical strength is configurability across a complicated organisation. If different regions, contracts or service lines need controlled views and distinct processes while leadership needs consolidated information, that depth can be valuable. It also makes MRI relevant to FM providers and property-led organisations that need the facilities platform to connect with a wider technology estate.
The procurement risk is ambiguity at portfolio level. MRI Software offers many products, while “MRI Evolution” itself can be combined with related capabilities. Buyers should map every requirement to the named product, module, interface and commercial line in the proposal. A demonstration of an impressive ecosystem is not the same thing as confirmation that every screen is included in the quoted scope.
Broader configurability also creates implementation decisions. Roles, permissions, workflows, reports, integrations and data ownership need deliberate design. That is not a criticism of enterprise software; it is the work required to make enterprise software useful. The dangerous phase is when the configuration team designs a pristine process and the people doing the work continue sending updates by email because nobody tested the process on a wet Tuesday with three urgent jobs open.
Where MRI Evolution tends to fit: larger or more complex estates, FM providers and property organisations needing enterprise-grade FM workflows, controlled access, mobile workforce support, integrations and room to connect additional building or property technology.
What to verify in the demo: exact modules, mobile capabilities, integration method and cost, configuration ownership, release process, hosting and security requirements, implementation resources, support model and total cost. The public UK product page reviewed directs buyers to request a demonstration rather than presenting a standard tariff.
Planon is the broadest platform in this comparison and is most relevant when the organisation needs to connect facilities operations with real estate, space, workplace services, energy and sustainability. It is better understood as an integrated workplace management system than as a narrowly scoped maintenance tool.
Planon’s UK material describes four connected domains: real-estate management, space and workplace services, asset and maintenance management, and energy and sustainability management. The platform also presents integration with finance and HR systems, building technologies, IoT, CAD and BIM information, while its workplace capabilities include space planning, reservations and employee services.
That breadth becomes valuable when the business case is strategic. A university may need maintenance, room use, campus experience and sustainability data. A corporate occupier may need to connect workplace demand, service provision, space and property cost. A large estate may want asset performance, energy consumption and capital decisions to sit within a shared information model.
The corresponding trade-off is proportionality. An organisation whose urgent problem is overdue PPM, inconsistent contractor updates and missing evidence may not need a multi-domain IWMS programme. It may still select Planon, but should do so because the wider capabilities are in scope and funded, not because they looked reassuring in a procurement spreadsheet.
Implementation capacity deserves particular attention. Planon’s own material references business consultancy, implementation consultancy, process design, reports, KPIs and integrations. A broad platform needs named data owners and decisions about common processes, local exceptions and system boundaries. Otherwise, the business can spend a serious amount of money integrating four versions of the truth.
Where Planon tends to fit: large organisations, campuses and corporate estates where maintenance must connect with space, workplace, real estate, sustainability and enterprise data.
What to verify in the demo: which domains and tiers are proposed, which integrations are standard or bespoke, how mobile and contractor users are licensed, implementation governance, data migration, ongoing administration and total cost. Public UK pages reviewed invite buyers to request a demonstration and describe tiers for some workplace capabilities, but do not provide a complete standard price for the IWMS.
Joblogic is the most service-delivery-led option in this shortlist. It is especially relevant to FM contractors, maintenance companies and engineer-led operations that need to connect jobs, scheduling and field work with quotations, job costing, purchase orders, invoicing and customer communication.
Its CAFM pages document job and asset management, planned maintenance, engineer scheduling, a mobile application, electronic forms, customer and subcontractor portals, stock, quoting, invoicing, dashboards and compliance-related workflows. Its public pricing page is unusually specific for this market: as reviewed on 22 September 2026, the Standard plan starts at £45 per user per month when billed annually, while Premium and Enterprise are priced on request. The page assigns PPM contracts, route scheduling and engineer tracking to Premium, with customer portal, stock, task and asset compliance, and advanced reporting listed under Enterprise.
This operational and commercial focus is useful when completed work needs to flow into billing and client reporting. An FM service provider may care as much about engineer utilisation, margin, schedule of rates and getting an invoice out as an occupier cares about portfolio condition and capital planning. The same phrase, “facilities management software”, can therefore describe two quite different centres of gravity.
For an in-house estates team, the question is whether Joblogic’s service-business model matches its governance. Some in-house teams will value the scheduling, mobile and job-costing depth; others will need wider property hierarchies, landlord or tenant information, strategic asset planning, compliance-document governance or workplace functions that should be tested in detail.
Where Joblogic tends to fit: FM contractors, multi-trade service businesses and engineer-led maintenance operations where job delivery and commercial administration need to work together.
What to verify in the demo: the plan required for every workflow, optional marketplace applications, portal access, subcontractor process, accounting integration, form design, data export, onboarding, price changes at scale and the total cost beyond the headline user rate.
The table below describes each platform’s documented operational focus. It does not claim that a product cannot support work outside that centre, because configuration, modules and integrations can change the practical scope.
|
Platform |
Documented centre of gravity |
Strongest candidate where |
Main issue to test |
Public pricing signal reviewed 22 September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
expansive |
Multi-site operational CAFM across planned and reactive work, assets, contractors, quotes, costs and reporting |
An in-house FM team needs portfolio control across sites and suppliers without a full IWMS programme |
Wider real estate and workplace scope; exact package, integrations and commercial model |
Bespoke; price depends on users, sites, features and setup |
|
MRI Evolution |
Configurable enterprise FM, mobile workforce, compliance, reporting and wider MRI ecosystem connections |
Multiple sites, business units, contracts or service lines need controlled workflows and integrations |
Named modules, configuration effort, integration architecture and total cost |
Quote/demo route on public product page reviewed |
|
Planon |
IWMS spanning real estate, workplace, assets, maintenance, energy and sustainability |
Facilities is part of a broad corporate property, campus, workplace or sustainability programme |
Whether enterprise breadth is proportionate; governance and implementation capacity |
Quote/demo route; complete IWMS tariff not published on pages reviewed |
|
Joblogic |
Engineer-led field service, job management, costing, PPM, quoting and invoicing |
An FM contractor or service business needs field delivery and commercial administration together |
Which plan and add-ons are needed; fit with in-house property and governance requirements |
Standard from £45 per user per month billed annually; Premium and Enterprise on request |
The most important distinction is between an occupier or estate controlling facilities outcomes and a service provider delivering chargeable work. Both need jobs and assets, but the surrounding questions differ. The occupier asks whether risk, evidence, suppliers and lifecycle cost are under control; the contractor also asks whether resources were productive, contractual rates were applied and completed work became revenue.
For a multi-site in-house FM team: expansive may be the most relevant first demonstration when the day-to-day requirement combines requests, contractors, PPM, assets, evidence, quote approvals, SLAs and costs. Its scope is closely aligned with the operational handovers that create the most administration.
For a complex enterprise or FM provider: MRI Evolution becomes more relevant as workflow configuration, permissions, multiple service lines, mobile workforce management and integration with a broader property stack move to the centre of the brief.
For a corporate real-estate, campus or workplace programme: Planon is a clear candidate where maintenance is one domain within a funded IWMS requirement covering space, workplace, property and sustainability. Its breadth is useful only if the organisation intends to govern and use it.
For an engineer-led service business: Joblogic has a strong proposition where scheduling, field evidence, job costing, quotations, invoicing and customer reporting need to form one commercial workflow. Its published entry pricing also gives smaller teams an earlier indication of subscription cost, although package and add-on requirements still need mapping.
These are reasoned starting points, not universal rankings. A national retailer and a university can have the same number of buildings and completely different software needs. Even two FM providers may differ because one self-delivers engineering work while the other coordinates a large subcontractor network.
Ask each supplier to complete the same workflows using the same sample data. A polished tour shows what the demonstrator knows; a scenario test shows whether the product can support what your team does.
Use at least these five scenarios:
1. Reactive repair: A site user reports a fault against a location or asset. Show triage, duplicate detection, access information, attendance, updates, evidence, costs, closure and feedback.
2. Planned statutory task: A recurring task becomes due. Show scheduling, reminders, completion evidence, a failed result, remedial work and the audit trail.
3. Quote and approval: A contractor identifies additional work. Show the request, comparable quotes where relevant, approval limits, comments, expiry, and the route to invoice.
4. Asset decision: An asset fails again. Show its hierarchy, service and fault history, cost, condition, warranty, planned work and the lifecycle information available for a repair-or-replace decision.
5. Portfolio report: A director asks which sites have overdue critical work, where supplier SLAs are failing and why reactive spend has increased. Build the answer live, then show who can see it and whether the result can be scheduled or exported.
Score the full workflow, including the handovers. A system can have excellent job logging and excellent reporting while the middle still depends on somebody remembering to attach a certificate from an inbox. That is not a digital process. It is a filing habit with nicer branding.
The licence is only one part of the cost. Buyers should model implementation, configuration, data cleansing, migration, integrations, training, contractor onboarding, internal administration, reporting changes and exit or data-extraction requirements.
Public price transparency varies in this shortlist. Joblogic publishes an entry price for Standard and asks buyers to request prices for higher plans. expansive explains the variables behind bespoke pricing. MRI Evolution and Planon direct buyers towards a demonstration or tailored discussion on the public product pages reviewed. This does not establish which product is cheaper; it establishes how much commercial work remains before the options can be compared.
Ask every provider for a five-year total-cost model using common assumptions:
The cheapest proposal can become surprisingly expensive when half the process returns to email and a regional spreadsheet appears “temporarily”. Temporary spreadsheets have a remarkable record of professional longevity.
CAFM implementation succeeds when the organisation simplifies and owns its operating model before it configures the software. Technology can enforce a sensible process; it can also automate a confused one with tremendous efficiency.
Start with data. Decide which property, asset, supplier and PPM records are authoritative, what must be cleansed, what can be archived and who owns quality after go-live. Do not migrate every historical row merely because it is available. A large inaccurate asset register is not more mature than a smaller trusted one.
Next, define governance. Name owners for workflows, statutory schedules, supplier records, user permissions, reports and integrations. Decide which differences between sites are legitimate and which are simply habits. Standardisation should remove avoidable variation without pretending every building operates identically.
Then plan adoption around roles. Requesters need a fast way to report issues. Engineers need usable mobile steps and relevant asset history. Contractors need clear instructions, access details and evidence requirements. Managers need exceptions and decisions, not 19 dashboards competing to be ignored. Finance needs controlled costs and references that reconcile.
Finally, phase the scope. It is often better to establish trusted reactive work, critical PPM, core assets and supplier workflows before expanding into every desirable module. The goal is not to go live with the most screens. It is to make the new system the easiest place to do the real work.
There is no honest universal winner, but there is a clear way to build a shortlist.
For a UK multi-site in-house FM team that needs connected control of planned and reactive maintenance, contractors, assets, compliance evidence, quotes and spend, expansive is a strong first option to test among these four. The product’s focus matches the operational problem without automatically turning the project into an enterprise-wide IWMS programme.
MRI Evolution deserves consideration where enterprise configuration, controlled access, mobile workforce requirements and wider property-system connections are central. Planon is a strong strategic candidate when real estate, space, workplace and sustainability sit inside the same funded transformation. Joblogic is particularly compelling where the organisation delivers field service and needs job execution to connect with costing, quotations, invoicing and customer reporting.
Shortlist the two or three platforms whose main drive matches your operating model. Give them the same scenarios, and involve the people who will use the system after the procurement team has moved on to something else.
For organisations trying to bring multi-site maintenance, contractors, evidence and costs into one operational view, an expansive demonstration is a proportionate next step. Bring one awkward workflow and one imperfect data sample. They will tell you more than another hour of slides.