Facilio

Name: Facilio
Brand: Facilio
Rating: 4.1 (29 reviews)

Rethink property operations for the new world. Lead with data.

Est 2017|Valuation $171M|Raised $45.9M|67 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 34K|Web traffic 23K|FTEs 250|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsFacilities Management Industrial IoT IT Service Desk (ITSM)

Platform CoversEnergy Management Smart Buildings Plant Maintenance

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Direct competitors and differentiators - Facilio versus modern CMMS products (MaintainX, UpKeep): Facilio emphasizes portfolio-level operational consolidation (maintenance, compliance, vendors, tenants, finance, and analytics) and vendor-reported AI capabilities. MaintainX and UpKeep are often positioned as more mobile-centric and faster to adopt; for organizations whose primary requirement is technician execution and rapid adoption, those alternatives may offer advantages. - Facilio versus enterprise IWMS tools (IBM TRIRIGA, Planon, FM:Systems): IWMS tools typically provide deeper enterprise real estate modeling, space governance, and long-standing enterprise procurement patterns. IWMS tools can involve multi-year commitments and higher minimums in some procurement channels. - Pricing comparison and value proposition - Facilio is quote-based with tiered packaging, which can accommodate complex requirements but reduces transparency for self-service buyers. - Some CMMS competitors publish starting price information, which can facilitate quicker evaluation for smaller teams or pilot projects. - Customer testimonials comparing products - Direct, verifiable first-person comparisons between Facilio and specific competitors were not accessible in the sources used for this research. Community discussions indicate that negotiation, pricing, onboarding, and support are frequent decision drivers across CMMS choices. - Market share and adoption trends - Press coverage indicates venture interest in CMMS and facilities tooling and lists Facilio among active vendors in the market. No credible market-share numbers were found in the accessible sources used for this research.

	Facilio	MaintainX	UpKeep
Starting Price	Custom quote (tiered packaging published; no list price shown)	Public pricing page exists; published pricing varies by plan/region	Vendor publishes starting price information for core maintenance (confirm current offerings with the vendor)
Best For	Portfolio and multi-site FM operations aiming to unify maintenance, compliance, vendor, tenant, and financial workflows plus analytics and optional AI (vendor positioning)	Teams prioritizing mobile usability and faster deployment (market perception)	Maintenance and reliability teams seeking CMMS features and asset operations tools; vendor-published pricing information can aid initial evaluation
Key Strength	Platform positioned to support multiple operational workflows and enterprise packaging (SSO, dedicated customer success)	Mobile-first orientation and simpler onboarding compared with some enterprise platforms	Vendor-published starting price information and mainstream CMMS feature set; AI positioning in vendor materials
Key Weakness	Limited public pricing transparency; review snippets cite mobile issues and substantial customization/implementation effort	May require additional enterprise-tier features for complex portfolios; negotiation noted in community discussions	Per-user pricing models can be a barrier for large teams; packaging and implementation options may increase total cost

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Direct competitors and differentiators
- Facilio versus modern CMMS products (MaintainX, UpKeep): Facilio emphasizes portfolio-level operational consolidation (maintenance, compliance, vendors, tenants, finance, and analytics) and vendor-reported AI capabilities. MaintainX and UpKeep are often positioned as more mobile-centric and faster to adopt; for organizations whose primary requirement is technician execution and rapid adoption, those alternatives may offer advantages.
- Facilio versus enterprise IWMS tools (IBM TRIRIGA, Planon, FM:Systems): IWMS tools typically provide deeper enterprise real estate modeling, space governance, and long-standing enterprise procurement patterns. IWMS tools can involve multi-year commitments and higher minimums in some procurement channels.
Pricing comparison and value proposition
- Facilio is quote-based with tiered packaging, which can accommodate complex requirements but reduces transparency for self-service buyers.
- Some CMMS competitors publish starting price information, which can facilitate quicker evaluation for smaller teams or pilot projects.
Customer testimonials comparing products
- Direct, verifiable first-person comparisons between Facilio and specific competitors were not accessible in the sources used for this research. Community discussions indicate that negotiation, pricing, onboarding, and support are frequent decision drivers across CMMS choices.
Market share and adoption trends
- Press coverage indicates venture interest in CMMS and facilities tooling and lists Facilio among active vendors in the market. No credible market-share numbers were found in the accessible sources used for this research.

	Facilio	MaintainX	UpKeep
Starting Price	Custom quote (tiered packaging published; no list price shown)	Public pricing page exists; published pricing varies by plan/region	Vendor publishes starting price information for core maintenance (confirm current offerings with the vendor)
Best For	Portfolio and multi-site FM operations aiming to unify maintenance, compliance, vendor, tenant, and financial workflows plus analytics and optional AI (vendor positioning)	Teams prioritizing mobile usability and faster deployment (market perception)	Maintenance and reliability teams seeking CMMS features and asset operations tools; vendor-published pricing information can aid initial evaluation
Key Strength	Platform positioned to support multiple operational workflows and enterprise packaging (SSO, dedicated customer success)	Mobile-first orientation and simpler onboarding compared with some enterprise platforms	Vendor-published starting price information and mainstream CMMS feature set; AI positioning in vendor materials
Key Weakness	Limited public pricing transparency; review snippets cite mobile issues and substantial customization/implementation effort	May require additional enterprise-tier features for complex portfolios; negotiation noted in community discussions	Per-user pricing models can be a barrier for large teams; packaging and implementation options may increase total cost