GT Get Taxi Systems

Name: GT Get Taxi Systems
Brand: Gett
Rating: 4.5 (1749 reviews)

We believe people move to connect. We create efficient and reliable movement so the communities we serve can thrive.

Est 2010|Valuation $190M|Raised $908M

LinkedIn 56K|Website|Web traffic 805K|FTEs 863|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsExpense Management

Published Sep 26, 2026

01Common complaints

- An organization requires publicly documented SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 evidence prior to procurement and the vendor cannot provide attestation artifacts under NDA or via a trust portal. - Automated SCIM provisioning is a strict requirement and the organization cannot accept alternative provisioning methods or custom automation. - The program is primarily North America–focused and the buyer expects differentiated fulfillment over what partners (such as Lyft or Uber) already provide; in such cases, direct engagement with the underlying supplier may be more appropriate. - The traveler population includes a large portion of international phone numbers where OTP/SMS delivery is known to be unreliable, and booking friction cannot be tolerated. - SCIM provisioning is not supported based on developer-facing documentation; this increases administrative overhead for identity lifecycle management unless alternative automation is implemented. - Verification and OTP failures are recurring complaint themes in community and consumer complaint sources; organizations should include cross-border phone number testing in pilots. - Security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001) were not publicly documented in the reviewed materials; enterprise buyers should request these artifacts.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations requiring SCIM for automated identity lifecycle management where SCIM cannot be provided or an alternative provisioning approach is unacceptable.
Organizations requiring publicly documented SOC 2 or ISO 27001 attestations prior to procurement, unless the vendor can provide these artifacts under NDA or via a trust portal.

02Why they buy

Observed differentiators (with caveats)

- Corporate-focused ground transportation management features and a platform approach that combines booking, billing, and policy controls; vendor materials include quantified savings claims that require independent verification. - Marketplace and fleet network coverage in markets where Gett operates taxi partnerships; vendor content cites fleet counts and network scale as a vendor claim. - Developer-facing APIs for booking and employee management, which enable technical integration beyond a consumer app.

Areas where competitors likely have advantage

Transparent, self-serve enterprise onboarding, global ubiquity, and supply scale (competitors may provide broader geographic coverage and more publicly documented security practices).

Why customers chose Gett (as inferred)

Common selection drivers suggested by public materials and reviews:

Centralized billing and receipts, and enterprise-oriented travel management features.
Coverage through marketplace/fleet networks and partner relationships in regions where Gett does not operate a proprietary network.

03Field reports

Review platform availability notes

Gartner Peer Insights: review content was not accessible via the automated crawl (likely behind restricted access).
G2: Gett is listed on G2 with reviewer content available on the platform.
Capterra: Gett appears listed under travel management software with comparative context.
Trustpilot: consumer-facing reviews exist for Gett UK; these reviews reflect consumer service perceptions and may not directly reflect enterprise program performance.

Positive sentiment (examples)

User comments on public review platforms include statements that booking became easier for some reviewer segments.
Historical business pages and vendor-published supplier case studies reference operational reliability for certain infrastructure components.

Negative sentiment / complaints (examples)

- Recurrent themes in complaint and community sources include one-time-password (OTP) and verification failures that block bookings for some users. - Consumer-facing review snippets include pricing dissatisfaction and confusion about fare differences; these reflect consumer experiences more than enterprise program feedback. - Community posts and localized complaints report adverse experiences with individual drivers in specific locations; these are anecdotal and location-specific.

Why some customers leave / churn drivers (signals)

Access friction caused by verification or login issues.
Perceptions of pricing inconsistency or higher costs relative to alternatives in certain consumer reports.

Vendor/partner-published evidence

1. SEC filing (vendor investor materials) - The filing includes vendor-reported metrics such as a corporate mark-up and reported customer savings estimates. These are company-reported metrics; the methodology and independence of verification are not clear from the excerpts. 2. Supplier case study (infrastructure vendor) - A supplier-published customer page contains vendor quotes about operational reliability for an infrastructure component; this supports an infrastructure proof point but is supplier-selected and not an independent buyer ROI analysis. 3. Backup/recovery vendor case study (infrastructure) - Infrastructure and operational case studies exist that describe back-office or readiness activities; treat these as operational proof points rather than direct evidence of travel program savings. Critical evaluation: vendor-published case studies and investor materials should be validated through pilot programs, anonymized customer references, and independent review of methodology before relying on reported savings.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Likely mid-market to enterprise (e.g., organizations with several hundred employees) with sufficient ground-transport volume for centralized billing, policy controls, and reporting to deliver measurable value.

Industries / verticals

Consulting, professional services, finance, and other industries with frequent business travel and client site visits.
Organizations with a UK presence that require integration with licensed taxi ecosystems.

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Travel managers, procurement, finance (accounts payable/expense), and security/IT.
End users: Frequent travelers, administrative staff, and office managers.

Qualification criteria (suitable fit)

Need for centralized receipts and billing, policy compliance, and coverage across multiple cities.
Willingness to integrate via API and SSO.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Gett (legal entity referenced as GT Get Taxi Systems Ltd / GT Gettaxi entities) is a business-focused ground transportation management (GTM) platform for corporate travel and spend control, with taxi and ride booking capabilities in selected markets. The product mix typically includes: - A business travel booking interface (mobile/web) for employees to request rides. - Centralized billing, policy controls, and receipts/expense workflows. - A marketplace/network model that can route rides to taxi fleets and partners; in North America, Gett has historically relied on partner supply (for example, Lyft network) for ride fulfillment rather than operating a proprietary driver network in every market. - APIs (Business API, Employee API) intended for enterprise integrations.

Target market and positioning

Primary (current) positioning: corporate ground transportation and business travel program owners (travel managers, procurement, finance) seeking standardization and spend controls.
Secondary: taxi booking in specific geographies (notably the UK/London footprint is prominent in public materials).

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

Download full report →