CMMS Comparison

Hands-on Speed Test: MaintainX vs UpKeep

We put MaintainX and UpKeep head-to-head in a controlled "Mean Time To Repair". Here is what we found.

See the Test in Action

Watch the raw Mean Time To Repair footage above.

Testing Methodology

To measure Mean Time To Repair, we timed the full work order lifecycle on each platform's mobile app. The test involved a technician receiving a repair notification, starting the work timer, logging completion notes, and closing the ticket. MaintainX proved faster due to its superior user interface. Key actions like starting, stopping, and completing work were consolidated on a single screen, requiring significantly fewer taps and less navigation than UpKeep's multi-tab process.

MaintainX

45 Seconds

Mean Time To Repair

UpKeep

60 Seconds

Mean Time To Repair

Pricing Showdown

Tier MaintainX UpKeep
Free Tier Generous plan with unlimited users and work orders. Heavily limited; suitable for trials (e.g., 25 WO/mo limit).
Starter $49/user/mo (Premium Plan) $45/user/mo (Starter Plan)
Enterprise Custom Quote Custom Quote
The Verdict MaintainX's free plan offers immense long-term value, while UpKeep is marginally cheaper at the entry-level paid tier.

Core Feature Comparison

Mobile App

MaintainX

4.8/5 (iOS) - Best-in-class, praised for its intuitive, chat-like interface.

UpKeep

4.6/5 (iOS) - Functional and comprehensive, but users report a steeper learning curve.

Offline Mode

MaintainX

Full functionality; create, edit, and comment on work orders with auto-sync.

UpKeep

Limited; primarily allows viewing and completing pre-loaded work orders.

Inventory

MaintainX

Strong parts tracking with QR codes, ideal for most teams.

UpKeep

More robust, with advanced purchase order management and cost-analysis features.

Reporting

MaintainX

Excellent pre-built dashboards for core operational KPIs.

UpKeep

Deeper, more customizable analytics with native BI tool integrations on upper tiers.

User Sentiment Analysis

What Users Say About MaintainX

"Users love the slick, Slack-like interface and mobile-first design but note that reporting lacks the deep customization of legacy systems."

What Users Say About UpKeep

"Praised for its powerful asset management and granular reporting, but criticized for a less intuitive UI and clunkier mobile experience."

Consensus: The clear winner for teams prioritizing speed and adoption is MaintainX, while UpKeep is the power-user choice for complex, data-heavy operations.

Projected Annual Savings

Based on the verified 15 Seconds speed gap per action.

Estimated Annual Savings
$7,595

217 Hours Saved / Yr

How We Calculate This

Annual savings ($S$) is determined by the "Speed Gap" discovered during our timed trials. We quantify the time reclaimed from each action and normalize it over a 260-day work year.

$$S = \left( \frac{X \times Y \times \Delta t \times 260}{3600} \right) \times Z$$

Variables: $X$ (Employees) | $Y$ (Daily Actions) | $\Delta t$ (15s Saved) | $Z$ (Labor Rate)

Technical Breakdown

Feature MaintainX UpKeep
Pros
  • Extremely user-friendly with a modern, chat-based interface, leading to high user adoption.
  • Integrated real-time messaging within work orders streamlines communication and problem-solving.
  • Excellent for creating and enforcing digital checklists and standard operating procedures (SOPs).
  • Scales effectively from small teams to large enterprises with robust features.
  • Offers advanced asset management, including detailed hierarchies, meter tracking, and lifecycle data.
  • Powerful integration capabilities with ERPs, IoT sensors, and other business systems via UpKeep Connect.
Cons
  • Reporting and analytics can be less customizable compared to more enterprise-focused platforms.
  • Advanced asset management features (e.g., complex hierarchies) may be limited for large-scale industrial operations.
  • Inventory management module is functional but less robust than some competitors for multi-site enterprises.
  • The interface is more complex and has a steeper learning curve compared to MaintainX.
  • Pricing for higher-tier plans with advanced features can be significantly more expensive.
  • Mobile experience, while strong, can feel less streamlined for communication than MaintainX's native chat.

90-Day Rollout

Based on typical deployment cycles for CMMS, here is what your first quarter looks like.

Phase 1: Data Preparation & System Setup (Days 1-30)

This phase focuses on collecting and formatting your data for import. The primary method for both platforms is CSV. MaintainX focuses on simplicity with direct uploads, while UpKeep offers a more structured mapping tool. Your choice may depend on your data's complexity. Key Steps: 1) Audit and collect all data for Assets, Locations, Parts, Users, and PMs. 2) Format data according to the platform's template. MaintainX Comparison: Provides simple, direct CSV templates within the app for Assets, Parts, etc. You fill out the template and upload it directly. For Enterprise plans, they offer a dedicated import team that can manage the data migration for you. UpKeep Comparison: Also uses CSV templates but processes them through a guided 'Data Importer' tool. This tool requires you to map each column from your file to the corresponding field in UpKeep, offering more control but adding a step. For complex migrations, their Professional Services team can be engaged.

Phase 2: Training & Pilot Program (Days 31-60)

Training approaches differ significantly, catering to different learning styles. MaintainX leans into self-service digital resources, while UpKeep offers more traditional, structured training options. Key Steps: 1) Identify a 'champion' user and a small pilot team. 2) Train the pilot team using the platform's resources. 3) Run the pilot on a single production line or asset category for 2-3 weeks to gather feedback. MaintainX Comparison: Training is centered around 'MaintainX University,' a comprehensive, on-demand video and article academy. This self-paced model is ideal for teams that need flexibility. Higher-tier plans include a dedicated Customer Success Manager (CSM) for personalized virtual guidance and strategy sessions. UpKeep Comparison: Offers a more structured training path. While they have a robust help center, their paid implementation packages often include live virtual training sessions with an Implementation Specialist or even on-site training days. This is ideal for teams that benefit from hands-on, instructor-led learning.

Phase 3: Go-Live & Optimization (Days 61-90)

The official launch and initial optimization period. The level of hands-on support during the first few critical days is a key differentiator. Key Steps: 1) Set a firm 'Go-Live' date. 2) Onboard all remaining users and fully transition from the old system. 3) Monitor initial usage, run first reports, and hold a review session after 30 days. MaintainX Comparison: Go-live is supported by your dedicated CSM who provides a 'Go-Live Success Plan' and checklists. Support during the launch is typically handled via scheduled calls and priority chat/email, focusing on empowering your team to manage the rollout using their provided resources. UpKeep Comparison: As part of their Professional Services, UpKeep can offer a 'hypercare' period. This involves having your Implementation Specialist on standby or actively engaged during the first week of go-live to quickly resolve issues. They often use a more formal Go/No-Go checklist before the final launch.

Final Verdict

Best for Small Business
MaintainX
Best for Enterprise
UpKeep

About the Auditor

This comparison was conducted by , a growth-focused marketing executive with a 15-year track record in scaling SaaS companies. As a key contributor to Lightspeed's growth from $16M to $120M ARR through its IPO and a growth architect for MaintainX’s $40M Series B, he provides an insider’s technical audit of CMMS efficiency. Based in Montreal, Canada, he specializes in building agentic AI workflows and SQL-driven reporting systems.

Disclosure: The author of this review, Ryan Webb, previously held a leadership role at MaintainX in 2020. This test was conducted objectively using standard devices, but readers should be aware of this professional history.