Infor EAM

Name: Infor EAM
Brand: Infor

Infor EAM is an Enterprise Asset Management platform that tracks assets, plans and executes maintenance and work orders, and manages inventory, inspections, compliance reporting, and lifecycle decision support.

Est 2002|Valuation $11B|Raised $1B

LinkedIn 923K|Website|Web traffic 4.1M|FTEs 17,000|HQ Alpharetta, Georgia, US

MarketsProduction Planning Industrial IoT Materials Management ERP Endpoint Management (UEM)

Platform CoversPlant Maintenance

Published Oct 14, 2026

01Common complaints

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Small teams or single-site operations that mainly need basic PM and work orders may be better served by CMMS tools designed for faster onboarding and lower administration overhead. - Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior - SAP-first enterprises may prefer SAP EAM for tighter end-to-end integration. - Organizations prioritizing advanced AI/computer-vision inspection bundles might consider IBM Maximo packages if those capabilities are central to the use case. - Technical requirements that this product cannot meet - There is no public evidence of a specific technical inability; most deployment constraints are contract- and architecture-dependent and should be validated with the vendor. - Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate - Multiple sources indicate high expense and consultant reliance; budget-constrained organizations should shortlist simpler CMMS tools. - Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short - Reporting is a recurring pain point in at least some peer review snippets and should be validated during evaluation. - Red flags in the buying process - If pricing is opaque and implementation scope is unclear, total cost can be higher than expected. - When teams expect to configure the system internally and quickly without external assistance, reviews suggest consultant dependence may be higher than anticipated. - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - No explicit vendor limitations list was found in the accessible sources. - Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - note estimated dates if available - No roadmap items were found in accessible sources. - Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?) - Not documented in accessible sources. - Security or compliance gaps - Product-specific certification documentation for the current owner (HxGN EAM) was not surfaced in accessible sources; buyers should request SOC/ISO reports and cloud architecture/security whitepapers. - Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews - The most concrete signal from reviews is the reliance on consultants for configuration and reporting, implying complexity in extensibility and reporting development. - API limitations or integration constraints - Not evidenced in accessible sources for this crawl.

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a POOR fit

If only lightweight work order tracking is required
If there is insufficient budget for training/consulting/admin capacity
If end-user adoption is unlikely (high resistance to process discipline)

02Why they buy

- Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims) - Validated mostly indirectly: users describe the product as extensive and configurable, allowing organizations to implement a subset of functionality as needed. - Unique features and capabilities competitors lack - No single feature was consistently cited as exclusive. Differentiation typically rests on industry configurability and breadth at enterprise scale. - Differentiation from competitors based on reviews - Differentiation implied by criticism: the product offers enterprise depth at the cost of complexity and higher total cost of ownership. - Value propositions with evidence from case studies - Vendor case content claims cost reduction and asset life extension outcomes, but independent verification was not found in the accessible material. - Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced) - SMB CMMS competitors: speed of deployment, ease of use, simpler pricing - SAP: integrated ERP workflow - IBM Maximo: published packaging, suite modules, and visible licensing model

03Field reports

Customer Testimonials

- Direct quotes from Gartner Peer Insights, Reddit, TrustRadius, G2, HackerNews - Reddit (positive/neutral): - “I use Infor EAM, it is massive but you can use as much or as little as you want.” (FacilityManagement subreddit) - Reddit (negative/price/training): - “Infor, which is now HXGN EAM, is very expensive for what we actually use…” (FacilityManagement subreddit) - A user also asked: “Any suggestions on how we get quality training in Infor/Hexagon EAM?” (same thread) - Capterra (negative: complexity + consultant dependence): - “...very competent with a lot of functionality, but its to hard to learn for the users and you are forever tied up to the need of consultants both to configure the system and create reports and kpi's, it's also very expensive.” (Capterra HxGN EAM review) - Gartner Peer Insights (HxGN EAM sample sentiment surfaced on listing page): - “Hexagon EAM is a powerful asset management tool, but its reporting needs a major overhaul” (headline snippet shown on Gartner’s HxGN EAM reviews page) - Same page also includes a positive transition-oriented comment: “...once Hexagon took over a few years ago, the documentation was quickly improved... At this point, I really have nothing negative to say about it.” (snippet on Gartner HxGN EAM reviews page) - TrustRadius (category framing): - TrustRadius’ EAM category page explicitly states: “HxGN EAM (formerly Infor EAM) is a configurable enterprise asset management platform.” (This is not a user quote, but helps confirm market identity.) - G2: Accessible G2 pages in the crawl were primarily at the Infor “seller” level rather than a dedicated “Infor EAM” product page; therefore, this report relies on other platforms for EAM-specific review quotes. - HackerNews: A direct “Infor EAM” thread was not surfaced in the initial accessible results; community feedback was therefore primarily drawn from Reddit. - Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features) - Complexity / learning curve (heavy enterprise system; requires training) - High cost relative to utilization - Reporting weaknesses (some reviewers indicate reporting needs improvement) - Dependence on consultants (configuration and KPI/report development) - Why customers chose this product over alternatives - Common reasons implied in user discussions and enterprise positioning: - Broad feature coverage (work orders, PMs, parts, compliance) - Fit for large fleets / multi-site operations - Standardization across the enterprise - Existing footprint (organizations that already had the product deployed) - Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons) - Direct churn stories were limited in accessible sources; however, the negative themes commonly associated with EAM migrations include: - Preference for simpler CMMS tools for teams not using advanced enterprise features - Total cost concerns - Reporting/analytics dissatisfaction - Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available) - Vendor marketing content (e.g., industry blog/case content) claims outcomes like reduced costs, extended asset life, and improved visibility; however, these claims are typically not independently verified. - Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase - Lack of transparent pricing and potentially large implementation projects - User adoption risk (learning curve) - If an organization only needs basic work orders/PM scheduling, the platform can be perceived as overbuilt

Case Studies

- Detailed customer success stories with metrics - Infor published an industry-focused EAM article about Republic Services stating that Infor EAM can help reduce costs by optimizing maintenance schedules, extend asset life, improve facilities monitoring, and consolidate asset data. - Critical evaluation: This is vendor-authored marketing content; it does not provide independently audited metrics (e.g., quantified cost reduction, downtime reduction, labor productivity gains) in the accessible excerpt. - Implementation details and time to value - Not detailed in the accessible Republic Services marketing piece. - Challenges faced during adoption and how they were resolved - Not detailed in accessible case content. - Note methodology gaps - Where ROI or performance improvement is claimed, the methodology is not disclosed in the referenced marketing content.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Typical fit (inferred from product positioning and user feedback):
- Mid-market to very large enterprises with multi-site operations
- Mid-market to large revenue organizations
- Public sector agencies and utilities with complex asset portfolios

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples)

Manufacturing, power & energy, transportation/transit, facilities, waste management/fleet (Republic Services is referenced in vendor marketing content as an example)

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Decision makers:
- VP Operations / Plant leadership
- Maintenance & Reliability leadership
- CIO/IT Director (platform, integration, security)
- Procurement / Supply chain leadership (MRO parts)
End users:
- Maintenance planners and schedulers
- Technicians / field crews (mobile work orders)
- Storeroom / inventory managers
- Reliability engineers

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Unplanned downtime
Fragmented maintenance records
Inconsistent PM compliance
Parts stockouts / lack of MRO visibility
Audit readiness and traceability needs

Qualification criteria: what makes a GREAT fit

Large asset base and multi-site complexity
Strong internal process maturity (standard job plans, asset hierarchies)
Executive commitment to adoption and training
Budget for implementation and continuous improvement

Real customer examples with company names when available

Republic Services is referenced in Infor’s EAM marketing content as a target industry example.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Important clarification: “Infor EAM” as a branded product is no longer owned or sold by Infor. Infor’s product page states that Infor EAM is now HxGN EAM (Hexagon’s SaaS EAM) and points users to Hexagon resources. In other words, buyers searching for “Infor EAM” are typically evaluating the same underlying product now commercialized by Hexagon (and sold under the HxGN EAM brand), not a current Infor-owned application. - Functionally, the product is an Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) platform used to track assets, plan and execute maintenance, manage work orders, manage parts/inventory, support inspections/compliance reporting, and optimize asset lifecycle decisions. Hexagon’s acquisition materials describe core capabilities such as work order management, inventory optimization, safety/compliance reporting, asset planning/decision-making, and mobile extensions.

Target market and market positioning

- Primarily used by asset-intensive organizations (multi-site maintenance operations) across industries such as manufacturing, utilities/power & energy, transportation/transit, facilities management, and other regulated environments. - Market position is typically enterprise / upper-midmarket rather than SMB CMMS—users commonly describe it as large-scale, higher-cost, and often requiring formal training or outside consultants for implementation and advanced configuration.

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

Download full report →