Cargomatic

Name: Cargomatic
Brand: Cargomatic

Leader

At Cargomatic, We Deliver More.

Est 2013|Valuation $1B|Raised $227.7M|2 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 26K|Web traffic 10K|FTEs 262|HQ Long Beach, California, US

MarketsSupply Chain Visibility Freight Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Cargomatic vs Uber Freight: - Both provide digital booking and visibility capabilities. - Uber Freight emphasizes instant quoting and a productized digital marketplace. - Cargomatic emphasizes local freight, port ecosystem integrations, and a workflow platform (Command) intended to centralize ordering, tracking, and billing. Cargomatic vs C.H. Robinson: - C.H. Robinson is typically selected for broad geographic coverage, multimodal capability, and established managed transportation programs. - Cargomatic may be selected where local execution around ports and metros is the primary pain point and where a centralized portal for execution and billing is preferred. Cargomatic vs Shipwell / visibility vendors (project44/FourKites): - Shipwell provides TMS and pricing intelligence and can be used alongside brokers and carriers. - Project44 and FourKites are visibility-first platforms and may provide deeper tracking integrations and analytics; they typically complement rather than replace execution capacity offered by brokers.

Adoption and market trends

Analyst directories and industry lists categorize Cargomatic among digital freight matching and freight-tech platforms, alongside other digital brokerage providers. This positions the company within the freight-tech cohort; market mindshare relative to larger incumbents varies by segment and geography.

	Cargomatic	Uber Freight	C.H. Robinson
Starting Price	Quote-based (no public tiers found)	Quote-based; instant quoting offered	Quote-based (contract/brokerage)
Best For	Local freight, drayage/intermodal, enterprise workflows via Command (centralized portal)	Shippers seeking fast digital quoting/booking and large network	Complex multimodal and global needs; mature brokerage capabilities
Key Strength	Port-centric focus and local freight execution emphasis	Productized instant quoting and large digital marketplace	Breadth of services, global reach, mature managed transportation programs
Key Weakness	Limited public security and compliance disclosure; mixed carrier-app sentiment	Pricing algorithms and carrier dynamics can be complex in edge cases	Potentially higher cost and legacy process friction relative to newer platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Cargomatic vs Uber Freight:

Both provide digital booking and visibility capabilities.
Uber Freight emphasizes instant quoting and a productized digital marketplace.
Cargomatic emphasizes local freight, port ecosystem integrations, and a workflow platform (Command) intended to centralize ordering, tracking, and billing.

Cargomatic vs C.H. Robinson:

C.H. Robinson is typically selected for broad geographic coverage, multimodal capability, and established managed transportation programs.
Cargomatic may be selected where local execution around ports and metros is the primary pain point and where a centralized portal for execution and billing is preferred.

Cargomatic vs Shipwell / visibility vendors (project44/FourKites):

Shipwell provides TMS and pricing intelligence and can be used alongside brokers and carriers.
Project44 and FourKites are visibility-first platforms and may provide deeper tracking integrations and analytics; they typically complement rather than replace execution capacity offered by brokers.

Adoption and market trends

	Cargomatic	Uber Freight	C.H. Robinson
Starting Price	Quote-based (no public tiers found)	Quote-based; instant quoting offered	Quote-based (contract/brokerage)
Best For	Local freight, drayage/intermodal, enterprise workflows via Command (centralized portal)	Shippers seeking fast digital quoting/booking and large network	Complex multimodal and global needs; mature brokerage capabilities
Key Strength	Port-centric focus and local freight execution emphasis	Productized instant quoting and large digital marketplace	Breadth of services, global reach, mature managed transportation programs
Key Weakness	Limited public security and compliance disclosure; mixed carrier-app sentiment	Pricing algorithms and carrier dynamics can be complex in edge cases	Potentially higher cost and legacy process friction relative to newer platforms