Methodology · Last reviewed November 9, 2026
How the AI takeoff tools are ranked
Every tool is graded on the same six criteria, from what its vendor publishes. Each grade has a note and a source link, so you can check it yourself and disagree with it.
The criteria and their weights
| Criterion | Weight | The question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| Trade fit | 20% | Does the tool understand the documents, symbols and line items of the trades it says it serves? |
| Schedules, plans and specs read together | 20% | Does it hold the schedule, the plans and the specification against each other and report where they disagree? |
| Accuracy checks | 15% | How do you check the output before you bid on it? |
| Output formats | 15% | Does the result land where you price, without re-keying? |
| Security | 15% | Can the vendor show how your bid documents are protected? |
| Learning curve and access | 15% | How quickly can an estimator try it on a real job and get value? |
Why these weights
Trade fit and reading schedules, plans and specs together carry the most weight (20% each) because they decide whether the quantities are right in the first place. A fast count of the wrong thing still loses the bid, or wins it at the wrong price. The other four criteria (15% each) decide whether you can check the result, use it, trust the vendor with your documents and get your estimators on it.
What earns each grade
Trade fit (20%)
Does the tool understand the documents, symbols and line items of the trades it says it serves?
- ● Shown: The vendor shows trade-specific reading (the trade's own documents, terms and line items), not only a list of trades on a menu.
- ◐ Partly: The tool covers many trades with general detection (counts, areas, lengths), and trade pages describe workflows rather than trade-specific models.
- ○ Not shown: No trade-specific capability is shown.
Schedules, plans and specs read together (20%)
Does it hold the schedule, the plans and the specification against each other and report where they disagree?
- ● Shown: The vendor shows cross-checking between schedules, plans and specs, with mismatches surfaced for review.
- ◐ Partly: The tool compares drawing sets or revisions, or takes specs as input, but does not show cross-document reconciliation.
- ○ Not shown: Nothing published about reading more than the drawings.
Accuracy checks (15%)
How do you check the output before you bid on it?
- ● Shown: Every result is tied to its source on the sheet, or checked by a person or a built-in check before it reaches you.
- ◐ Partly: You review AI results yourself; any accuracy figure is the vendor's own, without a method you can check.
- ○ Not shown: No way to check the output is described.
Output formats (15%)
Does the result land where you price, without re-keying?
- ● Shown: Named integrations with estimating or quoting systems, or configurable exports (Excel or CSV with your own layout, an API).
- ◐ Partly: Generic Excel or PDF export only, or an export whose formats are not listed.
- ○ Not shown: No export described.
Security (15%)
Can the vendor show how your bid documents are protected?
- ● Shown: The vendor states its own SOC 2 Type 2 (or equivalent) attestation on a public page.
- ◐ Partly: A security page or a security tier exists, but without an attestation of the vendor's own.
- ○ Not shown: No security information found on the vendor's public pages.
Learning curve and access (15%)
How quickly can an estimator try it on a real job and get value?
- ● Shown: Public pricing and a self-serve trial or free takeoff you can start without a sales call.
- ◐ Partly: Only part of it: public pricing without a free self-serve trial, or a trial, demo or free takeoff without public pricing.
- ○ Not shown: Access only through a sales process, with nothing published.
How the points add up
A criterion graded Shown earns its full weight, Partly earns half, and Not shown earns nothing. The points are added up, out of 100, and the list is sorted by points. When two tools tie, the one that is easier to try (the higher learning-curve grade) ranks first. The current points are:
- Fresco: 92.5 points (division 8 specialist)
- Bild AI: 77.5 points (division 8 specialist)
- Countfire: 67.5 points (m&e specialist)
- Kreo: 65 points (general-purpose)
- Beam AI: 65 points (done-for-you service plus software)
- Togal.AI: 50 points (general-purpose)
- Exayard: 47.5 points (general-purpose)
Specialists are judged on their own trade
Trade fit is graded on the trades a tool says it serves. A Division 8 tool such as Fresco or Bild AI is judged as a door, frame and hardware specialist, not marked down for skipping drywall, and it is no use to a drywall contractor however high it ranks. That is why every entry says who it suits and who should pick something else, and why the home page names a top pick for each type of buyer.
What we do not do
- We do not invent prices, ratings or accuracy figures. Where a vendor does not publish a price, the entry says so and tells you to ask.
- We do not repeat a vendor's accuracy percentage as fact. It is labelled as the vendor's own claim.
- We do not grade from private demos. A grade has to come from something a buyer can read on the vendor's public pages, linked on the tool's page.
- A grade of Not shown means we found nothing published, not that the feature does not exist. Ask the vendor, and tell us if it is published somewhere we missed.
When the list is reviewed
The date at the top of the ranking is the last time every entry was checked against its sources. Prices and features change between reviews, so check the vendor's page before you buy. Corrections with a source are welcome through the form on the ranking.