Turvo

Name: Turvo
Brand: Turvo

Turvo’s TMS and Collaboration Cloud connect brokers, 3PLs, shippers, and carriers to unite supply chain ecosystems.

Est 2014|Valuation $208.3M|Raised $124.1M|7 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 24K|Web traffic 326K|FTEs 151|HQ Dallas, Texas, US

MarketsSupply Chain Visibility Freight Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Turvo versus McLeod: - McLeod is positioned in the North American brokerage and carrier operations space with deep brokerage operations functionality, rating and accounting workflows, and a broad partner ecosystem. Organizations that prioritize brokerage-specific operational depth may favor McLeod. - Turvo is positioned toward collaboration and visibility across parties in a shipment lifecycle. Organizations that value a shared workflow and real-time tracking may find Turvo’s features aligned to those needs, subject to successful partner adoption and implementation. Turvo versus SAP TM: - SAP TM is typically selected by large enterprises seeking ERP-native process control and integration; implementations are often substantial in scope. - Turvo may be a better fit for mid-market operators seeking a cloud-first, collaboration-oriented solution, though buyers should not assume cloud deployment implies a short implementation timeline. Turvo versus MercuryGate: - MercuryGate is frequently selected by organizations that require multi-modal enterprise transportation management and deeper optimization and planning capabilities. Turvo’s value proposition emphasizes collaboration and shared workflows rather than advanced optimization out of the box.

	Turvo	McLeod Software (LoadMaster/PowerBroker)	SAP Transportation Management
Starting Price	Published starting monthly price with enterprise-style onboarding and services	Pricing typically quote-based; varies by modules and deployment	Pricing by request; typically licensed based on freight spend or enterprise agreements
Primary Use Case	Collaboration-focused TMS intended to support brokers/3PLs/shippers with visibility and workflow features	Broker/carrier-focused operations with depth in brokerage workflows and integrations	Large enterprise transportation management bundled with ERP and enterprise process governance
Key Strength	Collaboration and visibility features; vendor provides an integration hub and APIs	Established brokerage/carrier ecosystem and operational depth	Tight integration with ERP and enterprise governance capabilities
Key Weakness	Reported risks include extended onboarding timelines and mixed support experiences in some public reports	Can be complex to implement; UI modernization varies by product version	Typically longer and higher-cost implementations with greater complexity

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Turvo versus McLeod:

McLeod is positioned in the North American brokerage and carrier operations space with deep brokerage operations functionality, rating and accounting workflows, and a broad partner ecosystem. Organizations that prioritize brokerage-specific operational depth may favor McLeod.
Turvo is positioned toward collaboration and visibility across parties in a shipment lifecycle. Organizations that value a shared workflow and real-time tracking may find Turvo’s features aligned to those needs, subject to successful partner adoption and implementation.

Turvo versus SAP TM:

SAP TM is typically selected by large enterprises seeking ERP-native process control and integration; implementations are often substantial in scope.
Turvo may be a better fit for mid-market operators seeking a cloud-first, collaboration-oriented solution, though buyers should not assume cloud deployment implies a short implementation timeline.

Turvo versus MercuryGate:

MercuryGate is frequently selected by organizations that require multi-modal enterprise transportation management and deeper optimization and planning capabilities. Turvo’s value proposition emphasizes collaboration and shared workflows rather than advanced optimization out of the box.

	Turvo	McLeod Software (LoadMaster/PowerBroker)	SAP Transportation Management
Starting Price	Published starting monthly price with enterprise-style onboarding and services	Pricing typically quote-based; varies by modules and deployment	Pricing by request; typically licensed based on freight spend or enterprise agreements
Primary Use Case	Collaboration-focused TMS intended to support brokers/3PLs/shippers with visibility and workflow features	Broker/carrier-focused operations with depth in brokerage workflows and integrations	Large enterprise transportation management bundled with ERP and enterprise process governance
Key Strength	Collaboration and visibility features; vendor provides an integration hub and APIs	Established brokerage/carrier ecosystem and operational depth	Tight integration with ERP and enterprise governance capabilities
Key Weakness	Reported risks include extended onboarding timelines and mixed support experiences in some public reports	Can be complex to implement; UI modernization varies by product version	Typically longer and higher-cost implementations with greater complexity