Zepth vs Fieldwire: Owner-Side PMIS Comparison

Fieldwire is the better fit for teams that need a straightforward mobile field app for plans, tasks, punch lists, forms and site issues. Zepth is the better fit for Owner’s Representatives and Owner’s Engineers who need one owner-side PMIS to govern cost, schedule, risk, contracts, documents and portfolio reporting. Fieldwire can support field execution; Zepth is designed to work the project with the owner’s team across the capital-project lifecycle.

Quick Answer — Zepth vs Fieldwire at a Glance

The central distinction is the operating model. Fieldwire describes itself as a jobsite management platform for construction teams, with strong workflows for plan viewing, location-based tasks, forms, punch lists and issue tracking. Zepth is an AI-native construction and asset management platform built around a common data environment (CDE), with an owner-side data model spanning design, construction, procurement, financial management and handover.

For an owner, the question is not simply whether a team can upload drawings or close a punch item. It is where the authoritative record sits for budgets, commitments, variations, EOT claims, risks, approvals, correspondence and asset information. PMI and AACE guidance describes an owner-side PMIS as a centralised environment for project and portfolio data, governance workflows, ERP and asset-management integration, and structured records linking RFIs, submittals and changes to cost and schedule impact.

Choose Fieldwire if… your immediate requirement is fast field adoption, offline plan access, task assignment, inspections, photos and punch-list management.

Choose Zepth if… your mandate includes budget certainty, schedule and risk governance, contract and procurement control, portfolio MIS, auditable approvals and structured handover data.

Who Is Fieldwire Built For?

Fieldwire positions itself as “field management for construction teams” and calls out general contractors, specialty contractors, owners and architects. Its documented workflows are centred on jobsite execution: teams upload and version plans, add markups and hyperlinks, assign location-based tasks, complete checklists, record inspections and close punch items.

That focus is a genuine strength when the problem is coordination at the workface. Field teams can use mobile access, including offline plan viewing, to capture photos, annotate drawings and update task status. Custom forms support daily reports, safety audits and inspections. G2 and Capterra reviewers commonly praise the mobile interface, plan loading, offline usability and low training burden.

Fieldwire also provides task scheduling in Kanban, calendar and Gantt-style views. Business and Enterprise plans include RFIs and submittals, with creation, assignment, due dates, attachments and status tracking. The scheduling capability is not presented as a full CPM engine with critical-path calculation, float analysis and detailed baseline or variance tracking.

For an Owner’s Representative, Fieldwire can therefore be useful as a field collaboration layer. It is not publicly positioned as an owner-focused enterprise PMIS for capital planning and portfolio governance, a full project-controls system, or a financial-management and ERP solution. Its published integrations show how it can operate as one component in a wider stack.

Who Is Zepth Built For?

Zepth is built for owners, developers, PMCs, Owner’s Engineers, government and enterprise PMOs, as well as the delivery teams working with them. The platform is organised around a common data environment so that project information is not limited to a task, a drawing pin or a field report.

Zepth Core covers design and construction workflows including documents, quality and safety, site operations, project controls, risk management, RFIs and submittals. Zepth Vector covers procurement workflows such as tendering, line-by-line bid comparison, contracts, vendors and three-way invoice matching. Zepth Edge connects CapEx, budgets and MIS reporting to the wider project and asset record.

Zepth AI is the intelligence layer across those products, rather than a separate application. It reviews submittals and RFIs against drawings and specifications, provides a confidence score, drafts RFI responses with cited references, compares tender bids line by line, three-way-matches invoices before payment and flags emerging risk. A human must sign off on anything consequential.

This architecture matters to an owner because an AI review of a submittal is more useful when the relevant drawing, specification, contract package, supplier and approval record are connected. The same principle applies to a risk flag: its value depends on whether the owner can trace it to cost, schedule, correspondence and accountable actions.

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

Project Controls (cost, schedule, risk in one system)

Fieldwire provides useful schedule visibility through task views and can import schedules from Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project on applicable plans. Its public product information does not document budget baselines, forecast final cost, change-order management or earned value analysis. It also does not document a dedicated risk register with probability-impact scoring or quantitative risk analysis.

Zepth treats project controls as an owner governance function. Core brings schedule, risk, documents, quality, safety and site operations into the project record, while Edge provides CapEx, budgets and MIS reporting. The practical difference is the ability to review a variation, risk or delay in relation to the owner’s approved budget, contract, programme and portfolio reporting rather than relying on separate spreadsheets or systems.

For an Owner’s Representative managing FIDIC-aligned workflows, authority approvals, multi-currency projects or several active packages, this unified record is usually the more relevant evaluation criterion than the availability of a task Gantt.

AI & Automation Depth (bolted-on vs AI-native agents)

As of 24 July 2026, Fieldwire’s public website and product documentation do not highlight a dedicated AI product, autonomous-agent framework, generative-AI workflow or AI-driven risk-analysis capability. Experimental or beta capabilities are unverified and should not be assumed in an evaluation.

Zepth AI is designed as an embedded agent layer across the common data environment. It can review an RFI or submittal against project drawings and specifications, show a confidence score and draft a response with cited references. It can also compare tender bids line by line, match an invoice against the purchase order and receipt before payment, and flag risk early. These functions assist the project team; they do not remove human approval from consequential decisions.

The useful question is not whether a product has a chatbot. It is whether automation can work across the owner’s documents, procurement, commercial records, controls and risk data, with an audit trail that explains the source of a recommendation.

Document Management, RFIs & Submittals

Fieldwire is strong at drawings and field documents. It supports plan upload, version control, markups, callouts, sheet hyperlinks and offline mobile access. It can store and link general files, but it is not marketed as a full enterprise CDE or BIM CDE platform.

Its RFI and submittal workflows are available on Business and Enterprise plans. They support logs, assignments, due dates, attachments and status tracking, particularly for field-originated RFIs and contractor submittals such as product data and shop drawings. Public information does not specify multi-entity owner approval chains, contract-package alignment or portfolio-level RFI analytics.

Zepth Core provides a broader owner-side document and correspondence context. An RFI or submittal can sit alongside drawings, specifications, quality records, risk, approvals and project controls. Zepth AI can review the content against referenced drawings and specifications and draft a cited response for human review. That is a different workflow from simply routing and closing a field item.

Reporting, Dashboards & Portfolio Analytics

Fieldwire reports focus on execution: open, in-progress and completed tasks, daily reports, punch lists, inspection reports, timesheets and form data. Tasks and forms can be exported in PDF or CSV formats. Its public materials do not market portfolio dashboards aggregating cost and schedule status, executive MIS reporting for CapEx programmes, portfolio risk views or earned-value analytics.

Zepth Edge is designed for the owner’s financial and asset perspective, with CapEx, budgets and MIS reporting connected to the project record. Core supplies the delivery and controls context. The result is intended for questions such as: which projects are trending beyond approved funding, which contracts carry unresolved exposure, and which risks require portfolio-level escalation?

Those questions are different from “how many punch items remain on this floor?” Both views can matter, but they should not be confused.

Implementation Time & Ease of Use

Fieldwire emphasises quick deployment and field onboarding. Typical setup involves creating projects, uploading plans, configuring teams and creating tasks or forms. Larger deployments may add SSO, integrations and custom form templates. Reviews describe a simple mobile interface and relatively low training requirements. An official enterprise implementation timeframe is not publicly specified.

Zepth requires more deliberate configuration because an owner-side PMIS must reflect project hierarchies, contract packages, approval authorities, reporting rules, controls and integrations. That is a governance decision, not merely an app rollout. The implementation effort should be assessed against the number of projects, entities, currencies, approval paths and systems that need to share the owner’s data.

Pricing Comparison (published ranges + what drives cost)

Fieldwire publishes four USD tiers, priced per user per month when billed annually: Basic at $39, Pro at $59, Business at $79 and Enterprise at a custom price. Basic includes plans, tasks, photos and basic forms; Pro adds custom forms and advanced reporting; Business adds RFIs, submittals and 3D model viewing; Enterprise adds SSO, custom onboarding, enterprise integrations and additional controls. Monthly billing is available at higher per-user rates, with exact amounts varying by region.

Zepth does not publish a standard price card in the supplied research. Pricing is available through an enterprise agreement. Zepth does not charge per seat or collaborator and does not price on construction volume. The commercial discussion is therefore driven by the required products, project and portfolio scope, workflows, integrations, governance requirements and implementation needs. Direct Zepth-versus-Fieldwire ROI figures are not publicly specified.

For owners, the relevant comparison is not only licence price. It is also whether Fieldwire remains a site tool alongside an ERP, spreadsheet-based cost control and another reporting system, or whether the organisation needs one governed PMIS for the capital programme.

Integrations & Ecosystem (ERP, BIM, existing tool stack)

Fieldwire lists integrations with Box, Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive, Procore, Autodesk BIM 360, Bluebeam, CMiC, Spectrum and QuickBooks. It also lists SAML SSO, Okta and Azure AD, with API access and webhooks on Business and Enterprise plans. These connections support a component-based ecosystem in which field tasks, forms, photos or attachments can be shared with other systems.

That may be appropriate when the contractor has selected Fieldwire for site execution and the owner already has a separate PMIS or ERP. The owner should define which system is authoritative for budgets, commitments, changes, schedule, risk and approvals before approving an integration.

Zepth is intended to provide that owner-side common data environment across Core, Vector and Edge. It can be evaluated as the governed project and asset layer rather than only as another field application. Integration requirements should still be confirmed for the specific ERP, BIM environment, identity provider and reporting stack.

What Real Switching From Fieldwire Looks Like (migration path, data continuity)

Switching from Fieldwire to Zepth is not a one-click conversion. It begins with an inventory of active projects, plan sets, files, photos, tasks, forms, RFIs, submittals, users, status values and retention obligations. The owner then decides which records must remain structured for ongoing controls and which can be retained as historical documents.

Fieldwire data that may be exported includes PDF plans and drawings, photos and files, task and issue data in CSV form, form records, and RFI or submittal logs in CSV or PDF formats. The completeness of API extraction, including all comments and version history, is not publicly specified and should be confirmed during due diligence.

Some information may not transfer as equivalent structured records. Fine-grained task relationships, threaded comments, custom workflow behaviour and mobile-specific metadata such as offline timestamps or device information may need to be preserved as notes, attachments or archived PDFs. The migration plan should map each source field to a Zepth record and identify what will be re-keyed.

A practical sequence is:

• Define the owner’s project, contract, package, asset and reporting hierarchy.
• Classify Fieldwire data as active structured records, reference documents or archive-only history.
• Export and validate drawings, tasks, forms, RFIs, submittals, photos and attachments.
• Load active records into the relevant Zepth workflows and test permissions, approvals and reporting.
• Run both systems during an agreed transition period, reconcile open items and preserve the Fieldwire archive.

The key continuity test is whether an existing RFI, issue or submittal can be linked to the new contract, cost, schedule and risk record. If it cannot, the owner may retain the evidence but lose some analytical structure.

Which Platform Should You Choose? (decision framework by project type/size)

Choose Fieldwire when the primary requirement is site-level collaboration: mobile plan access, location-based tasks, punch lists, inspections, safety forms, photos and quick field adoption. It is also a reasonable choice when the owner deliberately wants a field application that feeds a separate PMIS or ERP.

Choose Zepth when the owner’s team needs to govern the full project and portfolio: approved budgets, procurement, contracts, variations, EOT claims, RFIs, submittals, risk, schedule, quality, safety, MIS reporting and asset handover. Zepth is particularly relevant when different projects must follow common approval rules, when data must remain useful after practical completion, or when leadership needs one view of programme exposure.

For a small project with limited governance requirements, a field app may be sufficient. For a multi-package capital programme, the evaluation should test the owner-side data model, delegated authorities, auditability, ERP integration, portfolio reporting and handover continuity—not only the quality of the mobile task screen.

Before selecting, ask five questions:

• Where is the authoritative record for cost, schedule and risk?
• Can a variation be traced to its contract, approval, forecast and programme impact?
• Can the platform support stage gates and delegated approval authorities?
• Will RFIs, submittals and drawings remain linked to the owner’s project and asset record?
• Can AI recommendations be checked against cited project sources and signed off by a person?

For an owner comparing a field app with a full owner-side PMIS, those answers are more decisive than a feature-count comparison.

FAQ

To assess the difference against your live project hierarchy, contracts, reporting requirements and existing systems, book a tailored Zepth walkthrough using your real project data.