Cogram

Name: Cogram
Brand: Cogram

AI Native

The AI Platform for Architects, Builders, and Engineers.

Est 2021|Raised $4.5M|20 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 3K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 15|HQ Berlin, New Jersey, US

MarketsAI Assistant

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Cogram may provide relative advantages: - AEC focus: the product is designed to incorporate AEC document templates and contract-administration adjacencies (RFIs, submittals) rather than serving only general meetings. - Field reporting orientation: mobile support for in-person site walks and report templating can be differentiating compared with generic meeting tools. - Enterprise security features: SOC 2 Type II, SSO, MFA, RBAC, and data residency options are relevant to buyers with enterprise security requirements. Where alternatives may be stronger: - Procore / Newforma provide deeper native CA workflows, established ecosystem integrations, and broader adoption across large construction programs. - Otter / Fireflies have broader mainstream adoption, more peer references, and clearer self-serve onboarding experiences. - Point solutions for RFIs/submittals (e.g., iFieldSmart, SubmittalLink, ProjectReady) may offer deeper specialization for specific CA workflows. Adoption trends / market visibility No authoritative market share data was identified during this research pass. Public signals suggest Cogram is an earlier-stage startup with a relatively small team and lower brand visibility than mainstream meeting assistant vendors.

	Cogram	Otter.ai	Fireflies.ai
Starting Price	Published per-seat pricing available; public pricing page contained inconsistent/placeholder content	Free tier available; paid plans listed with published per-user pricing	Free tier available; paid plans listed with published per-user pricing, sometimes billed annually
Best For	AEC firms seeking template-driven outputs, field workflows, and contract-administration adjacency	General meeting transcription for individuals/teams	General meeting transcription with broad integrations for teams
Key Strength	AEC-specific workflows oriented toward field reports, templates, and CA adjacency	Brand recognition and mature transcription product with clear tiering	Integrations and team features; administrative controls and clear tiering
Key Weakness	Limited accessible independent reviews; public pricing clarity concerns; potential variation in module maturity	Less AEC-specific; may require manual adaptation to AEC templates	Not AEC-specific; cost model complexity in some feature configurations

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Cogram may provide relative advantages:

AEC focus: the product is designed to incorporate AEC document templates and contract-administration adjacencies (RFIs, submittals) rather than serving only general meetings.
Field reporting orientation: mobile support for in-person site walks and report templating can be differentiating compared with generic meeting tools.
Enterprise security features: SOC 2 Type II, SSO, MFA, RBAC, and data residency options are relevant to buyers with enterprise security requirements.

Where alternatives may be stronger:

Procore / Newforma provide deeper native CA workflows, established ecosystem integrations, and broader adoption across large construction programs.
Otter / Fireflies have broader mainstream adoption, more peer references, and clearer self-serve onboarding experiences.
Point solutions for RFIs/submittals (e.g., iFieldSmart, SubmittalLink, ProjectReady) may offer deeper specialization for specific CA workflows.

Adoption trends / market visibility No authoritative market share data was identified during this research pass. Public signals suggest Cogram is an earlier-stage startup with a relatively small team and lower brand visibility than mainstream meeting assistant vendors.

	Cogram	Otter.ai	Fireflies.ai
Starting Price	Published per-seat pricing available; public pricing page contained inconsistent/placeholder content	Free tier available; paid plans listed with published per-user pricing	Free tier available; paid plans listed with published per-user pricing, sometimes billed annually
Best For	AEC firms seeking template-driven outputs, field workflows, and contract-administration adjacency	General meeting transcription for individuals/teams	General meeting transcription with broad integrations for teams
Key Strength	AEC-specific workflows oriented toward field reports, templates, and CA adjacency	Brand recognition and mature transcription product with clear tiering	Integrations and team features; administrative controls and clear tiering
Key Weakness	Limited accessible independent reviews; public pricing clarity concerns; potential variation in module maturity	Less AEC-specific; may require manual adaptation to AEC templates	Not AEC-specific; cost model complexity in some feature configurations