FYLD

Name: FYLD
Brand: FYLD

AI Native

Frontline intelligence. Driving operational excellence. Designed for critical infrastructure organizations.

Est 2020|Valuation $63.2M|Raised $143.1M|17 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 7K|Web traffic 8K|FTEs 50|HQ London, United Kingdom

MarketsHealth & Safety

Published Aug 15, 2026

01Common complaints

An organization requires transparent, self-serve list pricing and immediate purchase without a vendor engagement. FYLD’s pricing is not published publicly; alternatives with public pricing may be a better initial fit.
The primary need is basic safety checklists and incident logging with minimal process change. For teams that require only inspections and OSHA-type reporting, simpler EHS tools may be lower friction and lower cost.
The organization cannot commit resources to change management for frontline adoption. Deployments that rely on video capture require training, policies, and engagement to be effective.
The organization requires publicly documented enterprise controls such as SOC 2 Type II for vendor onboarding. FYLD reports ISO 27001 and Cyber Essentials in public materials, but a SOC 2 Type II report was not publicly found in the reviewed sources.
The procurement process requires a body of independent third-party reviews (G2/Capterra/TrustRadius) prior to purchase. FYLD has limited presence on those platforms based on available searches, increasing the need for direct references.

Sources:

FYLD data protection page — https://fyld.ai/data-protection
Safesite pricing (example of public pricing) — https://safesitehq.com/pricing/

1. An organization requires transparent, self-serve list pricing and immediate purchase without a vendor engagement. FYLD’s pricing is not published publicly; alternatives with public pricing may be a better initial fit. 2. The primary need is basic safety checklists and incident logging with minimal process change. For teams that require only inspections and OSHA-type reporting, simpler EHS tools may be lower friction and lower cost. 3. The organization cannot commit resources to change management for frontline adoption. Deployments that rely on video capture require training, policies, and engagement to be effective. 4. The organization requires publicly documented enterprise controls such as SOC 2 Type II for vendor onboarding. FYLD reports ISO 27001 and Cyber Essentials in public materials, but a SOC 2 Type II report was not publicly found in the reviewed sources. 5. The procurement process requires a body of independent third-party reviews (G2/Capterra/TrustRadius) prior to purchase. FYLD has limited presence on those platforms based on available searches, increasing the need for direct references. Sources: - FYLD data protection page — https://fyld.ai/data-protection - Safesite pricing (example of public pricing) — https://safesitehq.com/pricing/

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations that will not permit video capture due to privacy, legal, or labor constraints.
Very small contractors that require only lightweight checklists and have tight budget constraints.
Environments with extremely limited connectivity and no support for offline or asynchronous workflows.

Publicly visible limitations and unknowns

Pricing is not published publicly, complicating early-stage evaluation and benchmarking.
Limited third-party review coverage on major B2B review platforms, which increases the diligence burden on buyers.
Security documentation gaps in public materials: ISO 27001 is claimed, but SOC 2 Type II and other enterprise control reports were not located in the reviewed sources.
Mobile UX risk: App Store ratings are modest and should be validated in pilots for offline behavior and device compatibility.

Sources:

FYLD data protection — https://fyld.ai/data-protection
FYLD iOS app listing — https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fyld/id1588103319
FYLD iOS app listing (UK) — https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fyld/id1588103319

- Pricing is not published publicly, complicating early-stage evaluation and benchmarking. - Limited third-party review coverage on major B2B review platforms, which increases the diligence burden on buyers. - Security documentation gaps in public materials: ISO 27001 is claimed, but SOC 2 Type II and other enterprise control reports were not located in the reviewed sources. - Mobile UX risk: App Store ratings are modest and should be validated in pilots for offline behavior and device compatibility. Sources: - FYLD data protection — https://fyld.ai/data-protection - FYLD iOS app listing — https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fyld/id1588103319 - FYLD iOS app listing (UK) — https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fyld/id1588103319

Vendor roadmap and release notes

The App Store listing indicates ongoing releases (for example, version 1.86 with updates in December 2025), but the vendor does not publish a detailed public roadmap in the sources reviewed.

Source:

Apple App Store listing (release info) — https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fyld/id1588103319

The App Store listing indicates ongoing releases (for example, version 1.86 with updates in December 2025), but the vendor does not publish a detailed public roadmap in the sources reviewed. Source: - Apple App Store listing (release info) — https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fyld/id1588103319

02Why they buy

Potential differentiators (vendor-claimed and supported by case materials)

Video Risk Assessments (VRA) that convert short site survey videos into structured assessment items.
Tools intended to enable supervisors to monitor more teams remotely, reducing travel and administrative time.
Integration capability with construction project management systems such as Procore.

Sources:

FYLD safety solution page — https://fyld.ai/solutions-safety
FYLD remote management case study — https://resources.fyld.ai/resources/case-study-increasing-productivity-through-remote-management
FYLD–Procore integration — https://resources.fyld.ai/resources/fyld-integrates-with-procore-to-bridge-the-gap-between-construction-field-work-and-back-office

- Video Risk Assessments (VRA) that convert short site survey videos into structured assessment items. - Tools intended to enable supervisors to monitor more teams remotely, reducing travel and administrative time. - Integration capability with construction project management systems such as Procore. Sources: - FYLD safety solution page — https://fyld.ai/solutions-safety - FYLD remote management case study — https://resources.fyld.ai/resources/case-study-increasing-productivity-through-remote-management - FYLD–Procore integration — https://resources.fyld.ai/resources/fyld-integrates-with-procore-to-bridge-the-gap-between-construction-field-work-and-back-office

Where competitors may have advantages

HammerTech: broader, purpose-built construction safety and compliance workflows and subcontractor management.
Safesite: clearer pricing tiers and simpler onboarding for smaller programs.

Sources:

HammerTech pricing and product positioning — https://www.hammertech.com/en-us/pricing
Safesite pricing — https://safesitehq.com/pricing/

- HammerTech: broader, purpose-built construction safety and compliance workflows and subcontractor management. - Safesite: clearer pricing tiers and simpler onboarding for smaller programs. Sources: - HammerTech pricing and product positioning — https://www.hammertech.com/en-us/pricing - Safesite pricing — https://safesitehq.com/pricing/

03Field reports

FYLD publishes multiple vendor-authored case studies with quantified outcomes. These documents help illustrate intended use cases and metrics but tend to emphasize positive results. The summaries below note the vendor-reported outcomes and include a brief critical assessment.

Review platform presence (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius)

Practical implication: buyers should plan to request direct reference calls, define proof-of-concept criteria, and include contractual safeguards (such as SLAs and data portability clauses) to mitigate the limited availability of third-party review data.

A limitation of this research is that FYLD does not appear to have readily discoverable, high-signal review coverage on major B2B review platforms (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius) based on the searches performed. This makes it harder to validate satisfaction drivers, complaints, or competitor comparisons through standard peer-review channels. Practical implication: buyers should plan to request direct reference calls, define proof-of-concept criteria, and include contractual safeguards (such as SLAs and data portability clauses) to mitigate the limited availability of third-party review data.

App Store reviews (proxy signal, but not the same as enterprise satisfaction)

FYLD has an iOS app with limited ratings in public app stores. The app is poorly rated on the US App Store and moderately rated on the UK App Store, based on available public ratings with a limited sample.

App Store ratings can reflect mobile user experience, offline behavior, device compatibility, and frontline friction. These ratings are an imperfect proxy for enterprise satisfaction but provide some signal about mobile UX and field adoption challenges.

Vendor-published testimonials (selected by vendor)

FYLD publishes vendor-selected testimonials. An example vendor-published statement attributed to a Construction Site Safety Manager reads: "With FYLD, our teams are now being proactive and engaged with every job that they are on, which has made them safer and more efficient." Such vendor-published testimonials indicate messaging resonance but are not independent validation and may omit implementation challenges.

Community discussions (Reddit / Hacker News)

No substantive Reddit or Hacker News discussions about FYLD were found in the searches performed. This may indicate that FYLD is primarily procurement-led and enterprise-focused, or that broader public discussion of the product is limited.

Case Study A — Leakage management (water utility; pilot)

Vendor-reported highlights:

The vendor reports redesigning leakage job workflows and accelerating leak resolution during the trial period.
Reported water savings and estimated total program savings were presented in the vendor materials.
Numerous video-based risk assessments were conducted as part of the pilot.

Critical evaluation:

The case study provides operational metrics but does not disclose the counterfactual design, the attribution methodology for the reported savings, or whether the effects persisted after the pilot period.

Vendor-reported highlights: - The vendor reports redesigning leakage job workflows and accelerating leak resolution during the trial period. - Reported water savings and estimated total program savings were presented in the vendor materials. - Numerous video-based risk assessments were conducted as part of the pilot. Critical evaluation: - The case study provides operational metrics but does not disclose the counterfactual design, the attribution methodology for the reported savings, or whether the effects persisted after the pilot period.

Case Study B — Remote management productivity (utility program)

Vendor-reported highlights:

The vendor reports substantial time reductions for risk assessments in the trial and material fieldworker hours saved over the evaluation period.
The vendor reported a measurable productivity uplift and an increase in completed jobs during the program.
An internal survey reported high app usability scores among local delivery partners.
The vendor described an objective to reduce fines through improved evidence and processes.

Critical evaluation:

The case study presents time-savings metrics, but public materials do not fully describe how productivity uplift was calculated, whether samples were representative, or whether selection bias affected results.

Vendor-reported highlights: - The vendor reports substantial time reductions for risk assessments in the trial and material fieldworker hours saved over the evaluation period. - The vendor reported a measurable productivity uplift and an increase in completed jobs during the program. - An internal survey reported high app usability scores among local delivery partners. - The vendor described an objective to reduce fines through improved evidence and processes. Critical evaluation: - The case study presents time-savings metrics, but public materials do not fully describe how productivity uplift was calculated, whether samples were representative, or whether selection bias affected results.

Case Study C — JHA digitization and project schedule impact (highway context)

Vendor-reported highlights:

The vendor reports earlier-than-planned project completion and a surge in video uploads during the project closeout period.
The case study references incident-rate metrics and an estimated productivity benefit from faster JHA completion.

Critical evaluation:

The reportable outcomes are notable, but project completion and incident rates depend on multiple factors, including contracting model, weather, scope changes, and baseline safety culture. Buyers should request raw definitions, time-series data, and comparisons to prior similar projects to assess attribution.

Vendor-reported highlights: - The vendor reports earlier-than-planned project completion and a surge in video uploads during the project closeout period. - The case study references incident-rate metrics and an estimated productivity benefit from faster JHA completion. Critical evaluation: - The reportable outcomes are notable, but project completion and incident rates depend on multiple factors, including contracting model, weather, scope changes, and baseline safety culture. Buyers should request raw definitions, time-series data, and comparisons to prior similar projects to assess attribution.

04Best fit

Company sizes (directional)

Based on customer types referenced (large utilities, major contractors, multi-year programs), FYLD appears best suited to mid-market and enterprise infrastructure operators — organizations with large fieldwork programs and distributed supervisors. Exact ranges are not publicly specified and should be validated during sales discovery.

Industries/verticals

Gas utilities and distribution networks
Water and wastewater utilities
Heavy civil construction, highways and roadworks
Energy and outage operations

Roles and personas

Decision makers:

Director or VP of Operations
Field Operations leadership
Safety/EHS leaders focused on risk reduction
Digital transformation leaders in utilities and construction

End users:

Field workers conducting VRAs/JHAs and capturing evidence
Supervisors and foremen reviewing and approving work
Back-office coordinators using dashboards to prioritize interventions

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High volume of repeatable field workflows currently performed on paper, via photos, or through ad-hoc messaging.
Material fines or claims risk where auditable evidence and timestamps are valuable.
Significant supervisor travel time or lack of real-time visibility creating operational inefficiencies.
Willingness to redesign processes rather than only digitize existing forms.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Key capability themes described by FYLD (neutral phrasing):

Video-based risk assessments and site surveys
Evidence capture (photos and video) with an audit trail
Manager visibility and remote oversight tools
Use of machine learning models to generate insights and predictive signals for safety and operational outcomes

FYLD is a fieldwork execution and effectiveness platform that uses artificial intelligence to support infrastructure field operations (notably utilities and heavy civil construction). It replaces or augments traditional, form-based workflows (for example, risk assessments, daily reporting, job wrap-ups) by capturing video, photo, audio, and text from the field and converting those inputs into structured workflows, evidence, and analytics for managers. FYLD positions itself as a field–office bridge intended to provide visibility and prioritization signals to enable earlier managerial intervention; the vendor asserts this can reduce rework, delays, fines, and safety incidents. Key capability themes described by FYLD (neutral phrasing): - Video-based risk assessments and site surveys - Evidence capture (photos and video) with an audit trail - Manager visibility and remote oversight tools - Use of machine learning models to generate insights and predictive signals for safety and operational outcomes

Target market and positioning

FYLD targets organizations with frontline and field workforces operating in safety- and compliance-critical environments, including:

Utilities (gas, water/wastewater, power/outages)
Heavy civil construction and highway maintenance
Contractors and supply chain partners involved in field delivery

Vendor messaging highlights changes to operations, reducing safety risk, and remote management across distributed sites.

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

Download full report →