TANS

Name: TANS
Brand: TANS

Softwaretoepassingen TMS en WMS voor Logistieke MKB bedrijven. Planningssoftware voor logistieke bedrijven.

Est 1985|42 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 1K|Website|FTEs 42|HQ Eindhoven, North Brabant, NL

MarketsFreight Management

Published Sep 13, 2026

01Common complaints

- If an organization requires independently verifiable security/compliance certifications - If procurement requires SOC 2 or ISO certificates to be publicly available or rapidly provided, TANS’ public posture appears limited in the accessible sources. - If transparent pricing and self-serve procurement are required - Organizations that require published tiers, instant trials, or credit-card onboarding may find TANS’ sales process to follow a traditional quote-based model. - If a large peer-review footprint is a critical procurement input - Organizations that rely heavily on extensive Gartner/G2/TrustRadius-style peer review depth may find limited TANS-specific reviews online. - If a platform/network-first model is central to strategy - If an organization's strategy depends on large carrier networks, procurement marketplaces, and multi-party visibility layers, platforms such as Transporeon may align better. - If operations are primarily outside the Benelux - TANS’ documented evidence base is Benelux-oriented; organizations with broader international footprint may prefer vendors with larger global references. - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - No explicit "limitations" page was found in accessible sources. - Roadmap / future features - Release notes indicate continuous development; however, public roadmap commitments and dates are not clearly published. - Scale limitations - Not documented in accessible sources. - Security or compliance gaps - Main limitation is the lack of publicly documented certifications and enterprise security feature descriptions in accessible materials. - API limitations or integration constraints - Integration is a major vendor claim, but public API documentation and standard integration patterns are not clearly evidenced in the sources accessed.

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a POOR fit

Need for globally standardized, multi-region enterprise templates
Requirement for publicly documented security certifications (e.g., SOC 2 / ISO) as a gating procurement criterion
Preference for self-serve trials and transparent online pricing

02Why they buy

- Competitive considerations reported by customers (vendor-supplied) - Vendor-provided customer stories report familiarity with regional transport operations and generally positive experiences with support. These are vendor-supplied statements and were not independently validated in the accessible sources. - Unique features and capabilities competitors lack - There is insufficient evidence in public materials to claim unique, exclusive technical capabilities. The principal differentiator appears to be regional/domain fit and an integrated suite offering. - Differentiation from competitors based on reviews - Public third-party reviews are limited; differentiation is primarily inferred from vendor positioning and case studies rather than broad independent peer feedback. - Areas where competitors clearly have advantages - Larger vendors/platforms typically offer more robust public security/compliance documentation, larger ecosystems and integration marketplaces, and broader independent analyst/peer coverage.

03Field reports

- Note on review-source ambiguity - "TANS" is an overloaded term online (e.g., tanning, unrelated businesses). This created noise in review platform searches. - Many mainstream SaaS review platforms (G2/TrustRadius/Capterra) did not return clear, authoritative listings for TANS on those platforms. - Vendor-published testimonials (vendor-supplied) - Customer story: **G. van der Scheur Logistiek** - Vendor-supplied quote (Dutch): “TANS kan precies bouwen wat wij willen.” - Neutral paraphrase: The customer reported that TANS delivered functionality aligned with their requirements. This is a vendor-supplied testimonial and was not independently verified in the sources accessed. - Customer story: **Segers Internationaal Transport** - Vendor-supplied quote (Dutch): “Bij TANS weten ze hoe de transportwereld in elkaar zit.” - Neutral paraphrase: The customer reported that TANS staff demonstrated familiarity with transport operations and reported satisfactory helpdesk support. This is vendor-supplied and not independently audited. - Customer story: **Excluton** - Vendor headline (Dutch): “Aan alle kanten tijdwinst.” - Neutral paraphrase: The customer reports operational time savings after implementing TANS. The available excerpt provides qualitative outcomes; no independent KPIs were published in the material captured. - Independent trade-press sentiment (dated / limited) - A trade publication reports a vendor-presented customer survey with a moderately positive average rating (vendor-reported) and vendor comments on helpdesk response. This appears to be based on vendor-provided survey data and is dated. - Negative / critical user feedback (availability limitations) - No large volume of direct, end-user critical reviews for **TANS** was found on major review platforms during this research. - A Trustburn entry exists for the vendor domain, but the content appears generic and may not relate to the logistics software vendor; it should be treated as low-confidence evidence. - Community forum searches (Reddit, Hacker News) did not yield substantive discussions specifically about **TANS TALIS/IMPACT**. This limits the ability to weigh peer complaints from independent sources. - Why customers reportedly chose this product (inferred from vendor materials) - Alignment with Benelux road transport operations - Integrated invoicing/admin + planning + optional WMS in a single suite - Ability to integrate with common finance packages and onboard computers (per vendor materials) - Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons) - Not evidenced in accessible sources; no clear churn narratives were identified.

Excluton (manufacturer with own fleet)

Reported benefits:
- Operational time savings by replacing manual/paper processes
- Customer email notifications on planned delivery
Critical evaluation:
- Benefits reported in vendor-published material are qualitative; no independent KPIs (e.g., planning time reductions or on-time/in-full performance changes) were published in the captured excerpts.

Van der Scheur Logistiek

Reported benefits:
- Broad automation of processes over years; vendor-supplied statement that TANS delivered requested functionality
Critical evaluation:
- The statement implies customization; prospective buyers should clarify whether delivery was through configurable options or bespoke development and how that affects upgradeability and support.

Segers Internationaal Transport

Reported benefits:
- Shift from manual planning to TALIS; vendor-supplied comments on helpdesk support
Critical evaluation:
- No quantified ROI was published; evidence suggests sustained adoption over several years but lacks independent verification.

Vendor-published metrics (methodology gaps)

Vendor statements include claims such as:
- a substantial share of company costs allocated to R&D
- a substantial number of integrations
- a short published average helpdesk handling time
These metrics were presented without accompanying methodology or external validation in public sources.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Likely best fit:
- Small to mid-market logistics operators (SMB / mid-market)
- Companies with sufficient operational complexity to justify a dedicated TMS and optional WMS

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest

Road transport operators
Logistics service providers (2PL/3PL)
Distribution-heavy industries with own fleets (e.g., building materials, manufacturing distribution)

Roles and personas

Decision makers:
- Operations director, transport manager, logistics manager
- IT manager / application owner
End users:
- Dispatch/planning team
- Finance/admin billing team
- Warehouse supervisors (if WMS used)
- Drivers (Delivery App)

Pain points the product addresses

Manual planning and dispatch
Paper-based order handling and billing
Limited visibility and inconsistent operational data
Need to integrate telematics, finance packages, and customer communication

Qualification criteria: what makes a GOOD fit

Benelux-based operations where local domain alignment matters
Desire for a modular suite and phased implementation
Willingness to engage in implementation consulting and process mapping

05The pitch

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

- TANS is a Benelux-focused logistics software vendor providing transportation and warehouse back-office automation. - Its core product line appears to be: - **TALIS**: a modular **TMS** (Transportation Management System) with optional **WMS** capabilities and surrounding modules (order administration, planning, invoicing, hours, packaging/returnables, driver app, portals, etc.). - **IMPACT**: a separate planning application positioned as a newer planning tool. - Positioning is primarily "standard software with configurable modules," intended to limit bespoke development while allowing some customer-specific adjustments through configuration tools.

Target market and market positioning

- Target customers are primarily **SMB / mid-market transport and logistics companies** in the **Benelux**, including carriers, 2PL/3PL logistics service providers, and subsegments such as distribution and exceptional transport. - Market positioning highlights: - Domain familiarity with Benelux transport operations - Modular purchasing and phased rollout - Availability as **on‑premise or SaaS** depending on customer preference

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

Download full report →