StructionSite

Name: StructionSite
Brand: StructionSite

Capture photo documentation of your jobs in 360-degrees and take your image search from 30 minutes to 30 seconds.

Est 2016|Valuation $35.2M|Raised $35.6M

LinkedIn 12K|Website|FTEs 6|HQ San Francisco, California, US

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- DroneDeploy Ground vs legacy StructionSite: given migration, prospective buyers will often evaluate DroneDeploy Ground as the practical decision because the platform now hosts StructionSite capabilities. - OpenSpace: positions pricing around annual construction volume and may be easier to budget for enterprise programs that align to that model. - HoloBuilder/FARO Sphere XG: selected when teams already use FARO scanning hardware or require point-cloud workflows alongside 360 imagery. - Procore: commonly used as a system of record; buyers often pair Procore with a reality-capture specialist rather than using Procore alone for detailed site imaging workflows.

When customers choose competitors instead

OpenSpace is often chosen for enterprise-scale programs tied to annual volume and a mature enterprise buying motion.
Matterport may be chosen for simpler virtual-tour workflows and lower-cost entry points, recognizing differences in construction-focused capabilities.
HoloBuilder/FARO is selected when point-cloud alignment and FARO-centric scanning workflows are priorities.

	StructionSite (migrated into DroneDeploy Ground)	OpenSpace	HoloBuilder / FARO Sphere XG
Starting Price	Standalone pricing is not clearly published; migration to DroneDeploy Ground is quote-based	Vendor materials reference projects that may start in the thousands depending on scope	Pricing is typically customizable; third-party sources sometimes list per-user or per-project starting points
Recommended for	Teams seeking 360 documentation mapped to plans, particularly organizations aligned with Procore and the DroneDeploy ecosystem	Enterprise and large projects where pricing is tied to annual construction volume and deeper capture workflows	Organizations that require combined 360/photo workflows and point cloud management within a FARO-centric environment
Key Strength	Positive reviewer feedback on plan-mapped navigation and ease of capture in the available review excerpts	Pricing model aligned to volume and an enterprise sales motion; mature footprint in some enterprise programs	Integration with FARO scanning hardware and enterprise-oriented reality capture management
Key Weakness	Migration risk and limited clarity on standalone roadmap; pricing transparency is limited	Potentially expensive for smaller contractors; quote-based sales process	Pricing transparency and enterprise orientation can limit suitability for small teams

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

DroneDeploy Ground vs legacy StructionSite: given migration, prospective buyers will often evaluate DroneDeploy Ground as the practical decision because the platform now hosts StructionSite capabilities.
OpenSpace: positions pricing around annual construction volume and may be easier to budget for enterprise programs that align to that model.
HoloBuilder/FARO Sphere XG: selected when teams already use FARO scanning hardware or require point-cloud workflows alongside 360 imagery.
Procore: commonly used as a system of record; buyers often pair Procore with a reality-capture specialist rather than using Procore alone for detailed site imaging workflows.

When customers choose competitors instead

OpenSpace is often chosen for enterprise-scale programs tied to annual volume and a mature enterprise buying motion.
Matterport may be chosen for simpler virtual-tour workflows and lower-cost entry points, recognizing differences in construction-focused capabilities.
HoloBuilder/FARO is selected when point-cloud alignment and FARO-centric scanning workflows are priorities.

	StructionSite (migrated into DroneDeploy Ground)	OpenSpace	HoloBuilder / FARO Sphere XG
Starting Price	Standalone pricing is not clearly published; migration to DroneDeploy Ground is quote-based	Vendor materials reference projects that may start in the thousands depending on scope	Pricing is typically customizable; third-party sources sometimes list per-user or per-project starting points
Recommended for	Teams seeking 360 documentation mapped to plans, particularly organizations aligned with Procore and the DroneDeploy ecosystem	Enterprise and large projects where pricing is tied to annual construction volume and deeper capture workflows	Organizations that require combined 360/photo workflows and point cloud management within a FARO-centric environment
Key Strength	Positive reviewer feedback on plan-mapped navigation and ease of capture in the available review excerpts	Pricing model aligned to volume and an enterprise sales motion; mature footprint in some enterprise programs	Integration with FARO scanning hardware and enterprise-oriented reality capture management
Key Weakness	Migration risk and limited clarity on standalone roadmap; pricing transparency is limited	Potentially expensive for smaller contractors; quote-based sales process	Pricing transparency and enterprise orientation can limit suitability for small teams

StructionSite

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

When customers choose competitors instead

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

When customers choose competitors instead

02Market Map