Qflow

Name: Qflow
Brand: Qualis Flow (Qflow)

The On-Site Truth Captured In Seconds: Construction Materials, Waste and Carbon Data Platform

Est 2018|Valuation $33.1M|Raised $19.6M|41 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 10K|Web traffic 6K|FTEs 49|HQ London, United Kingdom

MarketsSupply Chain Visibility Materials Management

Published Oct 14, 2026

01Common complaints

If a full construction management platform is required

If the requirement is end-to-end project execution (RFIs, submittals, drawings, issue management, cost control), a platform such as Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud may be more appropriate. Qflow is specialised in delivery/waste capture and is intended to be complementary to broader project platforms.

If procurement requires public, verifiable security certifications

Organisations that require publicly posted SOC 2 or ISO 27001 artifacts as a procurement gate should confirm whether the vendor can provide these documents under NDA or during vendor security review. Public pages reviewed did not clearly document such certifications.

If audit-ready carbon outputs are required without specialist oversight

Qflow documentation states that it is not a carbon consultancy. For audited carbon accounting, organisations will likely need additional specialist review and assurance.

If sites cannot reliably follow capture discipline

The product’s value depends on consistent field capture. Weak gate capture, inconsistent photos, or supplier non-compliance can reduce accuracy and increase administrative overhead.

Sources:

Image quality / OCR gating issues (user-reported)

At least one reviewer reported that images were flagged as blurred even when source images appeared clear, suggesting potential false positives in quality checks.

Methodology and assurance limitations for carbon dashboards

The vendor provides methodological notes and disclaimers and states it is not a carbon consultancy; carbon outputs should be contextualised and reviewed by qualified practitioners when auditability is required.

Limited public transparency on security certifications

Security certifications and enterprise security feature details are not clearly documented in the reviewed public pages; these should be requested during procurement.

Limited public review footprint

A small number of third-party reviews and low review volume mean procurement should emphasise pilots and reference checks.

Sources:

1) If a full construction management platform is required - If the requirement is end-to-end project execution (RFIs, submittals, drawings, issue management, cost control), a platform such as Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud may be more appropriate. Qflow is specialised in delivery/waste capture and is intended to be complementary to broader project platforms. 2) If procurement requires public, verifiable security certifications - Organisations that require publicly posted SOC 2 or ISO 27001 artifacts as a procurement gate should confirm whether the vendor can provide these documents under NDA or during vendor security review. Public pages reviewed did not clearly document such certifications. 3) If audit-ready carbon outputs are required without specialist oversight - Qflow documentation states that it is not a carbon consultancy. For audited carbon accounting, organisations will likely need additional specialist review and assurance. 4) If sites cannot reliably follow capture discipline - The product’s value depends on consistent field capture. Weak gate capture, inconsistent photos, or supplier non-compliance can reduce accuracy and increase administrative overhead. Sources: - https://www.procore.com/pricing - https://www.construction.autodesk.com/pricing/ - https://qualisflowhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/15964193986844-Product-Carbon-Explained 1) Image quality / OCR gating issues (user-reported) - At least one reviewer reported that images were flagged as blurred even when source images appeared clear, suggesting potential false positives in quality checks. 2) Methodology and assurance limitations for carbon dashboards - The vendor provides methodological notes and disclaimers and states it is not a carbon consultancy; carbon outputs should be contextualised and reviewed by qualified practitioners when auditability is required. 3) Limited public transparency on security certifications - Security certifications and enterprise security feature details are not clearly documented in the reviewed public pages; these should be requested during procurement. 4) Limited public review footprint - A small number of third-party reviews and low review volume mean procurement should emphasise pilots and reference checks. Sources: - https://www.capterra.com/p/208505/QFlow-ai/ - https://qualisflowhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/15964193986844-Product-Carbon-Explained - https://qualisflow.com/

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Small contractors with low delivery volume and minimal reporting obligations.
Teams unwilling to implement gate/process changes or deploy devices on-site.
Organisations that require published SOC 2/ISO 27001 documentation as a mandatory procurement requirement (unless the vendor can provide such documentation under NDA).

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by evidence (objective phrasing)

Mobile application designed with an offline-first approach to support sites with limited connectivity; built using cross-platform technologies to support multiple device types.
Documented carbon calculation approach and cited sources (e.g., ICE database and conversion factors) that the vendor uses to generate carbon-related metrics; the vendor also includes disclaimers about the scope of those calculations.
Published integrations/export workflows with One Click LCA and Building Transparency (EC3) to enable transfer of captured quantities into carbon assessment tools.

Sources:

- Mobile application designed with an offline-first approach to support sites with limited connectivity; built using cross-platform technologies to support multiple device types. - Documented carbon calculation approach and cited sources (e.g., ICE database and conversion factors) that the vendor uses to generate carbon-related metrics; the vendor also includes disclaimers about the scope of those calculations. - Published integrations/export workflows with One Click LCA and Building Transparency (EC3) to enable transfer of captured quantities into carbon assessment tools. Sources: - https://qualisflow.com/engineering-a-mobile-app-for-construction-teams/ - https://qualisflowhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/15964193986844-Product-Carbon-Explained - https://help.oneclicklca.com/en/articles/275840-qflow-integration

Where competitors may have clearer advantages

Procore/Autodesk: broader platform functionality, larger ecosystems, and more established procurement pathways.
One Click LCA: established LCA/compliance posture and publicly stated ISO 27001 claim.
EC3: free/open-access embodied carbon tool.

Sources:

- Procore/Autodesk: broader platform functionality, larger ecosystems, and more established procurement pathways. - One Click LCA: established LCA/compliance posture and publicly stated ISO 27001 claim. - EC3: free/open-access embodied carbon tool. Sources: - https://oneclicklca.com/en-be/pricing/design-and-construction-pricing - https://www.buildingtransparency.org/tools/ec3/

03Field reports

Review platform availability reality check

Capterra listing contains limited review volume that includes both positive feedback about ease of use and a complaint about image-quality/processing.
Apple App Store ratings show regional variation with a small sample of ratings in each store.

Interpretation: review volume is low and regional ratings are volatile; procurement should emphasise reference checks and pilots rather than relying solely on third-party review aggregates.

Qflow (Qualis Flow) has a limited presence on major B2B review platforms under that exact brand name. There is a Capterra listing under a similar name with limited review volume that appears to align with Qflow’s delivery-note scanning workflow; app store ratings are inconsistent by region and sample size. - Capterra listing contains limited review volume that includes both positive feedback about ease of use and a complaint about image-quality/processing. - Apple App Store ratings show regional variation with a small sample of ratings in each store. Interpretation: review volume is low and regional ratings are volatile; procurement should emphasise reference checks and pilots rather than relying solely on third-party review aggregates.

Example customer feedback (selective)

A reviewer on a public listing provided mixed feedback indicating ease of use when contractors were instructed to scan delivery notes via the app, with AI processing the documents, but also reported image-quality gating that flagged some images as blurred or unsuitable despite appearing clear. This suggests possible false positives in image-quality detection or OCR confidence thresholds.

Interpretation: even if overall sentiment in that example is positive, image/OCR quality controls can generate operational friction.

Vendor social content

LinkedIn posts from the company claim usage on multiple sites and cite quantified outcomes such as reported savings or avoided emissions. These items are vendor-reported and were not independently validated as part of this review.

Other review/coverage channels

No substantive Qflow review pages were found on major enterprise review platforms during this research pass, and no clear Reddit/Hacker News discussions were evident. Community coverage appears limited.

Implication for procurement: rely on reference calls, pilot projects, and documented methodology rather than public review volume.

Vendor-cited project outcomes (from social posts)

Critical evaluation: the operational metrics appear plausible for improved documentation workflows, but organisations should request full case study documentation, including baselines, measurement methodology, and the degree to which Qflow contributed versus other operational changes.

Vendor social posts cite project-level outcomes for customers, including claims such as verified tracking of material and waste tonnages and improved diversion performance. These items are vendor-published and do not include detailed methodology, attribution, or independent validation in the public posts. Critical evaluation: the operational metrics appear plausible for improved documentation workflows, but organisations should request full case study documentation, including baselines, measurement methodology, and the degree to which Qflow contributed versus other operational changes.

Vendor report: "State of Data Quality in Construction"

Critical evaluation: this is a vendor-produced analysis. Procurement teams should request the full report, methodology, definitions of key terms (for example, what counts as "unusable"), sampling frames, and whether the dataset reflects a representative sample of the broader industry or a subset of sites already using the vendor product.

A vendor-published report claims analysis across multiple years of collected data and a large dataset of documented deliveries and waste removals, reporting findings such as high rates of incomplete or poor-quality documentation. Critical evaluation: this is a vendor-produced analysis. Procurement teams should request the full report, methodology, definitions of key terms (for example, what counts as "unusable"), sampling frames, and whether the dataset reflects a representative sample of the broader industry or a subset of sites already using the vendor product.

04Best fit

Company sizes (inferred)

Mid-market to enterprise contractors and developers running multiple projects where the ROI of improved data quality and auditability is higher.
Organisations with formal sustainability reporting obligations or regulatory compliance exposure.

Industries / verticals

Commercial construction
Infrastructure and large capital projects
Real estate development portfolios seeking certification readiness (for example, BREEAM/LEED)

Roles and personas

Sustainability / ESG leads
Project managers / site managers
Commercial / cost teams
Quality / compliance teams

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High volume of deliveries/waste movements with manual tracking issues.
Executive sponsorship to enforce on-site capture workflows.
Need to integrate as-built data into carbon/LCA tools.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective core value proposition)

Quality & compliance (traceability, audit chain, Golden Thread–style evidence)
Waste & utilities tracking
Carbon / embodied carbon reporting (including integrations with carbon tools)
Cost / risk reduction (avoiding rework, disputes, schedule delays)

The primary workflow described in vendor materials is: on-site teams photograph or capture delivery/waste documentation → Qflow extracts/standardizes data → dashboards/reporting support compliance, operational decisions, and carbon calculations. Vendor marketing includes a tagline that emphasizes rapid on-site capture; this should be understood as vendor positioning rather than an independent claim.

Evidence (official): Qflow product pages describe capture of materials, waste, utilities and carbon data from site and present goals of reducing spreadsheet reliance, administrative effort, and improving record accuracy.

Qflow (by Qualis Flow Ltd.) is an on-site data capture app and analytics platform designed to record what actually arrives, is used, and leaves a construction site—especially materials deliveries and waste movements—by digitising delivery notes/tickets and related documentation at the point of occurrence. The product is intended to replace spreadsheets and manual supplier follow-up by digitising delivery notes and related documentation to produce as-built records that can be used for: - Quality & compliance (traceability, audit chain, Golden Thread–style evidence) - Waste & utilities tracking - Carbon / embodied carbon reporting (including integrations with carbon tools) - Cost / risk reduction (avoiding rework, disputes, schedule delays) The primary workflow described in vendor materials is: on-site teams photograph or capture delivery/waste documentation → Qflow extracts/standardizes data → dashboards/reporting support compliance, operational decisions, and carbon calculations. Vendor marketing includes a tagline that emphasizes rapid on-site capture; this should be understood as vendor positioning rather than an independent claim. Evidence (official): Qflow product pages describe capture of materials, waste, utilities and carbon data from site and present goals of reducing spreadsheet reliance, administrative effort, and improving record accuracy.

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

Download full report →