Raken

Name: Raken
Brand: Raken
Rating: 4.6 (351 reviews)

Construction management software offering solutions for daily reporting, production tracking, safety, and more.

Est 2014|Valuation $60M|Raised $23.5M

LinkedIn 11K|Website|Web traffic 156K|FTEs 152|HQ Carlsbad, California, US

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Raken vs Fieldwire: When plan viewing and markup are primary requirements, Fieldwire may be a better match; when daily reporting, compliance documentation, and time/production capture are primary needs, Raken is often the selected option. - Raken vs Procore: Procore is typically selected when organizations require a comprehensive platform that includes PM, financials, RFIs/submittals, and broad stakeholder collaboration. Raken is generally positioned as a lighter-weight field documentation layer that can integrate with Procore to improve field reporting practices. - Raken vs Autodesk Build: Autodesk Build is an ecosystem-focused platform for document and build workflows. Raken can operate as a focused field capture layer with integration points into Autodesk Build/BIM 360.

Competitor perspectives (examples)

- Autodesk's partner ecosystem lists Raken integration capabilities into BIM 360/Build and references functionality such as time verification options (for example, GPS/geofencing) and photo identification features. These partner listings should be validated in a live demo for exact behavior and limits. - Rhumbix marketing materials indicate cases where organizations evaluated Raken but selected Rhumbix for its emphasis on complex labor rules and prevailing wage features.

	Raken	Fieldwire	Procore
Starting Price	Custom quote / not publicly posted on vendor site	Published free/basic tier; published per-user professional tier	Custom quote based on selected products and annual construction volume
Best For	Daily reports, field documentation, time/production, safety workflows	Plan viewing/markup and task coordination	End-to-end construction management with broad modules
Key Strength	Field-centric usability; standardized daily reporting PDFs; combined safety and time capture in one app	Drawing markup, task/punch workflows, transparent pricing	Broad platform breadth; integrations and ecosystem
Key Weakness	Limited project management feature depth; limited plan markup; pricing not published; mobile performance concerns reported	May have less depth in daily reporting depending on workflow; feature gating by tier	Cost and administrative overhead; potential pricing/renewal concerns in some accounts

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Raken vs Fieldwire: When plan viewing and markup are primary requirements, Fieldwire may be a better match; when daily reporting, compliance documentation, and time/production capture are primary needs, Raken is often the selected option.
Raken vs Procore: Procore is typically selected when organizations require a comprehensive platform that includes PM, financials, RFIs/submittals, and broad stakeholder collaboration. Raken is generally positioned as a lighter-weight field documentation layer that can integrate with Procore to improve field reporting practices.
Raken vs Autodesk Build: Autodesk Build is an ecosystem-focused platform for document and build workflows. Raken can operate as a focused field capture layer with integration points into Autodesk Build/BIM 360.

Competitor perspectives (examples)

Autodesk's partner ecosystem lists Raken integration capabilities into BIM 360/Build and references functionality such as time verification options (for example, GPS/geofencing) and photo identification features. These partner listings should be validated in a live demo for exact behavior and limits.
Rhumbix marketing materials indicate cases where organizations evaluated Raken but selected Rhumbix for its emphasis on complex labor rules and prevailing wage features.

	Raken	Fieldwire	Procore
Starting Price	Custom quote / not publicly posted on vendor site	Published free/basic tier; published per-user professional tier	Custom quote based on selected products and annual construction volume
Best For	Daily reports, field documentation, time/production, safety workflows	Plan viewing/markup and task coordination	End-to-end construction management with broad modules
Key Strength	Field-centric usability; standardized daily reporting PDFs; combined safety and time capture in one app	Drawing markup, task/punch workflows, transparent pricing	Broad platform breadth; integrations and ecosystem
Key Weakness	Limited project management feature depth; limited plan markup; pricing not published; mobile performance concerns reported	May have less depth in daily reporting depending on workflow; feature gating by tier	Cost and administrative overhead; potential pricing/renewal concerns in some accounts

Raken

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Competitor perspectives (examples)

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Competitor perspectives (examples)

02Market Map