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

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Gett vs Uber for Business: Uber provides broad supply coverage and straightforward self-serve onboarding; Gett’s model monetizes via a corporate mark-up and relies on marketplace supply in some geographies. Buyers should request pilot performance data and net pricing comparisons. - Gett vs Lyft Business: Historical partnerships between Gett and Lyft (in some regions) reduce differentiation in markets where underlying supply is the same. Buyers should assess whether Gett provides additional policy, reporting, or operational value beyond partner-supplied rides. - Service model differentiation: Gett’s orientation toward licensed taxi ecosystems in some markets (for example, regulated taxi services in large cities) can be relevant where regulated taxi supply, specific licensing, or receipt compliance is a procurement requirement.

	Gett	Uber for Business	Lyft Business
Starting price	Not publicly published as simple SaaS tiers; investor materials reference a corporate mark-up model (specific markup details not disclosed here)	Free to register; customers pay per ride	No standard published platform subscription; organizations pay for rides and configure policies
Most suitable for	Companies seeking taxi-network and marketplace coverage plus corporate controls; strong presence in UK taxi markets	Organizations needing broad coverage and global scale; simple self-service onboarding	Organizations with concentration in US/Canada that require concierge and organization controls
Key strengths	Corporate spend-management positioning; marketplace/fleet network; developer APIs for integration	Scale and broad geographic coverage; familiar brand and user base	Strong supply in North America; business features for policy and concierge services
Key weaknesses	Limited publicly documented security attestations; consumer-reported verification and pricing issues in public channels; SCIM not supported in developer docs	Perceptions of surge pricing and consumer trust issues across some markets	Business pricing perceptions can vary; surge/prime-time pricing affects availability and cost

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Gett vs Uber for Business: Uber provides broad supply coverage and straightforward self-serve onboarding; Gett’s model monetizes via a corporate mark-up and relies on marketplace supply in some geographies. Buyers should request pilot performance data and net pricing comparisons.
Gett vs Lyft Business: Historical partnerships between Gett and Lyft (in some regions) reduce differentiation in markets where underlying supply is the same. Buyers should assess whether Gett provides additional policy, reporting, or operational value beyond partner-supplied rides.
Service model differentiation: Gett’s orientation toward licensed taxi ecosystems in some markets (for example, regulated taxi services in large cities) can be relevant where regulated taxi supply, specific licensing, or receipt compliance is a procurement requirement.

	Gett	Uber for Business	Lyft Business
Starting price	Not publicly published as simple SaaS tiers; investor materials reference a corporate mark-up model (specific markup details not disclosed here)	Free to register; customers pay per ride	No standard published platform subscription; organizations pay for rides and configure policies
Most suitable for	Companies seeking taxi-network and marketplace coverage plus corporate controls; strong presence in UK taxi markets	Organizations needing broad coverage and global scale; simple self-service onboarding	Organizations with concentration in US/Canada that require concierge and organization controls
Key strengths	Corporate spend-management positioning; marketplace/fleet network; developer APIs for integration	Scale and broad geographic coverage; familiar brand and user base	Strong supply in North America; business features for policy and concierge services
Key weaknesses	Limited publicly documented security attestations; consumer-reported verification and pricing issues in public channels; SCIM not supported in developer docs	Perceptions of surge pricing and consumer trust issues across some markets	Business pricing perceptions can vary; surge/prime-time pricing affects availability and cost