Full Harvest

Name: Full Harvest
Brand: Full Harvest

We are the leading produce business marketplace for all produce grades, including an expertise in surplus and off-grade

Est 2015|Valuation $28.5M|Raised $41.3M

LinkedIn 12K|Website|FTEs 50|HQ San Francisco, California, US

Published Jul 14, 2026

01Common complaints

If you need transparent, self-serve pricing and immediate ROI modeling: Full Harvest does not publish a clear fee schedule publicly.
If your procurement is already consolidated with an incumbent distributor with strong service levels and negotiated pricing: the switching cost may outweigh marketplace savings.
If your organization requires SOC 2/ISO 27001 documentation up front: security certifications are not clearly disclosed publicly; procurement may stall.
If your operations cannot tolerate quality or logistics exceptions: marketplaces can introduce variability; unless Full Harvest’s QA and logistics performance is proven in your lanes, risk may be higher than with established distributors.
If your ESG claims require externally assured calculations: verify how "Verified Rescued Produce" is audited and whether it meets your assurance standards.

Sources: Full Harvest pages (pricing not shown; verification methodology caveats); Verified Rescued Produce page.

- **If you need transparent, self-serve pricing and immediate ROI modeling:** Full Harvest does not publish a clear fee schedule publicly. - **If your procurement is already consolidated with an incumbent distributor with strong service levels and negotiated pricing:** the switching cost may outweigh marketplace savings. - **If your organization requires SOC 2/ISO 27001 documentation up front:** security certifications are not clearly disclosed publicly; procurement may stall. - **If your operations cannot tolerate quality or logistics exceptions:** marketplaces can introduce variability; unless Full Harvest’s QA and logistics performance is proven in your lanes, risk may be higher than with established distributors. - **If your ESG claims require externally assured calculations:** verify how "Verified Rescued Produce" is audited and whether it meets your assurance standards. Sources: Full Harvest pages (pricing not shown; verification methodology caveats); Verified Rescued Produce page.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Very small buyers that need case-level quantities (marketplace appears oriented to commercial volumes).
Highly specialized specifications requiring extremely tight variety/pack/brand constraints where spot market variability is unacceptable.
Organizations requiring formal published security certifications before onboarding any third-party platform.

Publicly acknowledged limitations

No explicit "known issues" page found in public sources.

Limitations inferred from public information gaps

Security/compliance transparency gap (no public SOC 2/ISO 27001 claims located).
Pricing transparency gap (no public fee schedule).
Limited independent user review footprint (hard to assess support quality, uptime, dispute resolution, and real-world fill rates).

Roadmap / future features

Not clearly documented publicly beyond general statements about expanding technology, data insights, and footprint (per funding coverage).

Sources: TechCrunch Series B recap (investment in technology/data insights); Full Harvest pages.

Why customers might leave (inferred; limited direct evidence)

Potential churn drivers for this category include:

Inconsistent supply availability in specific commodities/regions.
Quality/rejection disputes and the operational burden of exception handling.
Freight performance issues (temperature, timing) depending on lanes/carriers.
Fee structure or delivered-cost competitiveness vs distributors.
Need for deeper ERP/procurement integrations than a marketplace provides.

Evidence gap: no accessible public "churn stories" specific to Full Harvest.

Potential churn drivers for this category include: - Inconsistent supply availability in specific commodities/regions. - Quality/rejection disputes and the operational burden of exception handling. - Freight performance issues (temperature, timing) depending on lanes/carriers. - Fee structure or delivered-cost competitiveness vs distributors. - Need for deeper ERP/procurement integrations than a marketplace provides. Evidence gap: no accessible public "churn stories" specific to Full Harvest.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by accessible evidence

The platform offers a proprietary "Verified Rescued Produce" seal and an associated audit/verification framing; buyers should verify the independence and methodology of that process.
The marketplace advertises coverage of all grades (USDA Grade 1 plus surplus/off-grade), signaling positioning beyond only "ugly produce."
The vendor describes digitized workflows for documentation, traceability, and logistics coordination targeted at a historically manual industry.

Sources: Verified Rescued Produce page; Buyers page; Farms page; SupplyChainBrain.

- The platform offers a proprietary "Verified Rescued Produce" seal and an associated audit/verification framing; buyers should verify the independence and methodology of that process. - The marketplace advertises coverage of all grades (USDA Grade 1 plus surplus/off-grade), signaling positioning beyond only "ugly produce." - The vendor describes digitized workflows for documentation, traceability, and logistics coordination targeted at a historically manual industry. Sources: Verified Rescued Produce page; Buyers page; Farms page; SupplyChainBrain.

Where competitors clearly have advantages

Reviewability and buyer proof: mainstream SaaS review platforms provide limited visibility into Full Harvest customer satisfaction.
Pricing transparency: some alternative marketplaces in adjacent categories publish pricing publicly, reducing purchase friction in those cases.

Sources: Rooted Farmers pricing page (example of transparent pricing in adjacent farm marketplace category).

03Field reports

What’s available publicly (and what’s missing)

Searches for "Full Harvest G2" and "Full Harvest TrustRadius" predominantly surfaced results for Harvest (a time-tracking product) rather than Full Harvest (produce marketplace). This indicates a discoverability problem for third-party review evidence, not necessarily an absence of customers.
Gartner Peer Insights presence for Full Harvest was not found in accessible search results (possible that it does not exist, is under a different category name, or is inaccessible).

Therefore, the reviews section relies primarily on:

Vendor-published testimonials on Full Harvest landing pages.
Press quotes from articles that quote company representatives and describe customer value.

This is a limitation: vendor testimonials are inherently curated.

Sources: Official vendor landing and buyer pages; Press coverage in technology/industry media.

Unlike mainstream SaaS tools, Full Harvest does not appear to have broad coverage on major B2B software review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights) in a way that is easily discoverable and clearly attributable to Full Harvest (vendor website). - Searches for "Full Harvest G2" and "Full Harvest TrustRadius" predominantly surfaced results for Harvest (a time-tracking product) rather than Full Harvest (produce marketplace). This indicates a discoverability problem for third-party review evidence, not necessarily an absence of customers. - Gartner Peer Insights presence for Full Harvest was not found in accessible search results (possible that it does not exist, is under a different category name, or is inaccessible). Therefore, the reviews section relies primarily on: - **Vendor-published testimonials** on Full Harvest landing pages. - **Press quotes** from articles that quote company representatives and describe customer value. This is a limitation: vendor testimonials are inherently curated. Sources: Official vendor landing and buyer pages; Press coverage in technology/industry media.

Vendor-published testimonials (examples)

Examples of vendor-published quotes include:

A buyer-side quote indicating improved price discovery and selection visibility (attributed generically to a "Production Supply Manager, Large Beverage Company").
A testimonial on a signup page from Project Juice about partnership and an "Ugly & Awesome" juice.
A quote on a Full Harvest page in which a procurement manager at a major national juice company attributes improved market visibility and pricing to the marketplace.

Caveat: These are not independently verified reviews, and most are anonymized.

Sources: Official vendor pages and signup/food-safety landing pages.

Examples of vendor-published quotes include: - A buyer-side quote indicating improved price discovery and selection visibility (attributed generically to a "Production Supply Manager, Large Beverage Company"). - A testimonial on a signup page from Project Juice about partnership and an "Ugly & Awesome" juice. - A quote on a Full Harvest page in which a procurement manager at a major national juice company attributes improved market visibility and pricing to the marketplace. Caveat: These are not independently verified reviews, and most are anonymized. Sources: Official vendor pages and signup/food-safety landing pages.

Negative reviews / complaints

Observed risk factors derive from common B2B marketplace issues rather than specific Full Harvest complaints, including:

Liquidity/coverage in specific commodities or regions.
Disputes and quality variability.
Logistics exceptions.

Sources: Absence of Full Harvest listings on major public review platforms in search results; industry Reddit and community threads discussing adjacent categories.

Credible, product-specific negative reviews were not found on accessible public review platforms during research (likely because Full Harvest is a niche B2B marketplace and/or customers do not commonly review it on public software review sites). Observed risk factors derive from common B2B marketplace issues rather than specific Full Harvest complaints, including: - Liquidity/coverage in specific commodities or regions. - Disputes and quality variability. - Logistics exceptions. Sources: Absence of Full Harvest listings on major public review platforms in search results; industry Reddit and community threads discussing adjacent categories.

Why customers choose it (evidence available)

Based on vendor claims and press coverage, customers are reported to choose Full Harvest for:

Faster sourcing (the vendor claims reductions in sourcing time).
Access to surplus/off-grade supply for cost savings and ESG goals.
Digitized workflow for documents, traceability, and logistics coordination.

These claims should be validated during reference calls.

Sources: Official vendor marketing and FAQ pages; Press coverage.

Vendor/press-reported outcomes

Press coverage reports a company claim that it helped one major U.S. farm increase profits by a double-digit percentage per acre.
Full Harvest seller-facing messaging also claims growers have increased profits up to a low double-digit percentage.

Critical evaluation:

These metrics appear vendor-asserted and not independently audited.
"Up to" framing suggests best-case outcomes; average/median outcomes are not disclosed.
No methodology is provided (baseline assumptions, time period, crop mix, whether incremental costs were included).

Sources: Press article; Official vendor seller-facing pages.

- Press coverage reports a company claim that it helped one major U.S. farm increase profits by a double-digit percentage per acre. - Full Harvest seller-facing messaging also claims growers have increased profits up to a low double-digit percentage. Critical evaluation: - These metrics appear vendor-asserted and not independently audited. - "Up to" framing suggests best-case outcomes; average/median outcomes are not disclosed. - No methodology is provided (baseline assumptions, time period, crop mix, whether incremental costs were included). Sources: Press article; Official vendor seller-facing pages.

Operational efficiency claims

The vendor claims buyers can reduce sourcing time by a very large proportion.

Critical evaluation:

Time-savings from digitized sourcing can be real, but they depend heavily on how much of the buyer’s spend can actually shift to the marketplace and whether exceptions (QA, claims, substitutions) reintroduce manual work.

Sources: Official vendor homepage and buyer-facing pages.

04Best fit

Company sizes (best-fit ranges)

Evidence is limited, but based on B2B marketplace and pallet-volume language in industry coverage:

Buyers: likely mid-market to enterprise food & beverage processors and manufacturers buying pallet quantities (e.g., multi-site processors).
Sellers: farms with substantial acreage/volume; reporting has emphasized larger commercial vegetable and fruit operations, which implies very large growers.

Sources: Industry trade coverage; TechCrunch reporting.

Evidence is limited, but based on B2B marketplace and pallet-volume language in industry coverage: - **Buyers:** likely mid-market to enterprise food & beverage processors and manufacturers buying pallet quantities (e.g., multi-site processors). - **Sellers:** farms with substantial acreage/volume; reporting has emphasized larger commercial vegetable and fruit operations, which implies very large growers. Sources: Industry trade coverage; TechCrunch reporting.

Industries / verticals

Beverage (juice/smoothies)
Food manufacturing (purees, frozen, ingredients)
Foodservice (where specs can be flexible)
Potentially retail/distribution after an all-grades expansion

Sources: Industry trade coverage; Official vendor pages; Industry publication.

Personas

Procurement / sourcing managers
Supply chain / operations
QA/food safety/compliance (document-heavy)
Sustainability/ESG leads (if leveraging Verified Rescued Produce claims)

Sources: Official vendor pages and program documentation.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Key product elements highlighted by the vendor include:

Online marketplace for listing and browsing produce and purchasing direct from farms on different terms (spot/program/contract).
Buyer tools such as RFP-like request workflows, document management (certificates/invoices), metrics dashboards, and logistics booking.
Seller tools for posting supply listings, matching to demand, and receiving payments.

Sources: Official vendor product and help pages; vendor FAQ and buyer/farm overview pages.

Full Harvest is a B2B produce marketplace intended to connect farms/growers with commercial produce buyers to transact on produce procurement digitally—covering spot buys as well as program/contract sourcing. The company references all grades of produce (USDA Grade 1 as well as surplus/off-grade) and positions the marketplace as a way to reduce procurement time, improve pricing visibility, and recover value from surplus or off-grade product that might otherwise be wasted. Key product elements highlighted by the vendor include: - Online marketplace for listing and browsing produce and purchasing direct from farms on different terms (spot/program/contract). - Buyer tools such as RFP-like request workflows, document management (certificates/invoices), metrics dashboards, and logistics booking. - Seller tools for posting supply listings, matching to demand, and receiving payments. Sources: Official vendor product and help pages; vendor FAQ and buyer/farm overview pages.

Target market and positioning

Target market (inferred from vendor messaging and press):

Buy-side: food & beverage manufacturers/processors (e.g., juice, smoothie, baby food), foodservice, and potentially retailers/distributors that buy at commercial volumes.
Sell-side: farms/growers with meaningful acreage/volume (press coverage mentions focus on larger farms) rather than small CSA-style direct-to-consumer farms.

Positioning: A produce marketplace and supply-chain digitization platform, with a differentiator around surplus/off-grade sourcing and sustainability/food-waste reduction.

Sources: Official vendor materials; industry press coverage and trade interviews.

**Target market (inferred from vendor messaging and press):** - **Buy-side:** food & beverage manufacturers/processors (e.g., juice, smoothie, baby food), foodservice, and potentially retailers/distributors that buy at commercial volumes. - **Sell-side:** farms/growers with meaningful acreage/volume (press coverage mentions focus on larger farms) rather than small CSA-style direct-to-consumer farms. **Positioning:** A produce marketplace and supply-chain digitization platform, with a differentiator around surplus/off-grade sourcing and sustainability/food-waste reduction. Sources: Official vendor materials; industry press coverage and trade interviews.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Full Harvest including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →