Ordermentum

Name: Ordermentum
Brand: Kurdle
Rating: 4.7 (12 reviews)

Empowering the food & beverage industry to trade smarter.

Est 2014|Valuation $59.9M|Raised $24M|215 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 7K|Web traffic 84K|FTEs 95|HQ Sydney, New South Wales, AU

MarketsIntake-to-Pay B2B Payments

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- Ordermentum and Upstock both emphasize buyer-facing free tiers and supplier-focused automation. Upstock’s public plan pages are more explicit about plan structure and payment fees; Ordermentum emphasizes Australian scale, integrated payments, and supplier-venue relationship depth. - Choco positions itself as not being a marketplace, which can be preferable for distributors concerned about channel conflict. Ordermentum emphasizes network effects and supplier discovery. - MarketMan targets restaurant operators with inventory, costing, and purchasing analytics; it may be a better fit where recipe costing, inventory variance, and theoretical vs actual food cost reporting are primary priorities.

	Ordermentum	Upstock	Choco
Starting Price	Venues: Free; Pro available for a modest monthly fee. Suppliers: plans start in the low hundreds per month; per-invoice and volume-based fees apply.	Buyers: Free. Supplier plans: free directory; paid logistics tier available plus applicable payment fees.	Restaurants: Free. Supplier pricing: monthly fee based on usage (quote-based).
Typical Fit	AU hospitality venues and suppliers seeking ordering, payments, and network effects.	NZ/AU wholesale brands seeking marketplace exposure and automation; buyers seeking free ordering.	Distributors digitizing inbound ordering from restaurants; vendor does not position itself as a marketplace.
Key Strength	Two-sided AU network plus payments/invoicing and integrations; vendor-published scale claims.	Transparent buyer-facing plan structure and marketplace plus automation narrative.	Ability to support ordering without marketplace-style buyer discovery, which may reduce channel conflict for distributors.
Key Weakness	Reported payment/refund/credit workflow issues; supplier pricing is largely tailored and not fully transparent online; limited public security attestations.	Payment fees and plan boundaries can be confusing; public documentation varies by region.	Pricing is quote-based and less transparent; may be less network-driven in AU hospitality specifically.

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Ordermentum and Upstock both emphasize buyer-facing free tiers and supplier-focused automation. Upstock’s public plan pages are more explicit about plan structure and payment fees; Ordermentum emphasizes Australian scale, integrated payments, and supplier-venue relationship depth.
Choco positions itself as not being a marketplace, which can be preferable for distributors concerned about channel conflict. Ordermentum emphasizes network effects and supplier discovery.
MarketMan targets restaurant operators with inventory, costing, and purchasing analytics; it may be a better fit where recipe costing, inventory variance, and theoretical vs actual food cost reporting are primary priorities.

	Ordermentum	Upstock	Choco
Starting Price	Venues: Free; Pro available for a modest monthly fee. Suppliers: plans start in the low hundreds per month; per-invoice and volume-based fees apply.	Buyers: Free. Supplier plans: free directory; paid logistics tier available plus applicable payment fees.	Restaurants: Free. Supplier pricing: monthly fee based on usage (quote-based).
Typical Fit	AU hospitality venues and suppliers seeking ordering, payments, and network effects.	NZ/AU wholesale brands seeking marketplace exposure and automation; buyers seeking free ordering.	Distributors digitizing inbound ordering from restaurants; vendor does not position itself as a marketplace.
Key Strength	Two-sided AU network plus payments/invoicing and integrations; vendor-published scale claims.	Transparent buyer-facing plan structure and marketplace plus automation narrative.	Ability to support ordering without marketplace-style buyer discovery, which may reduce channel conflict for distributors.
Key Weakness	Reported payment/refund/credit workflow issues; supplier pricing is largely tailored and not fully transparent online; limited public security attestations.	Payment fees and plan boundaries can be confusing; public documentation varies by region.	Pricing is quote-based and less transparent; may be less network-driven in AU hospitality specifically.