CARL Source vs. Hippo CMMS
| Product | Rating | Most Used By | Product Summary | Starting Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 CARL Source | N/A | N/A | CARL Software is a French CMMS software company for over 35 years. CARL Source is a CMMS/EAM solution designed to meet the needs of companies in all sectors. CARL Source optimizes maintenance management, reduces downtime and improves the productivity of technical teams. CARL Berger-Levrault positions itself as ready for Industry 5.0 and Maintenance 5.0 by integrating AI-based solutions. CARL Berger-Levrault states they have been working for over 10 years on artificial… | N/A |
 Hippo CMMS | Score2 out of 10 | Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees) | Hippo CMMS is a maintenance management software tool for organizations of all sizes. It is a SaaS solution offering a customized interface designed to suit users' operational maintenance needs. The vendor states that Hippo’s UX design principle has always been the same: features only have value if they're easy to find and use, and so they state their layout is clean and intuitive, making the software a breeze to learn. Hippo CMMS has been providing maintenance software to… | $35 per month per user |
| CARL Source | Hippo CMMS | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Editions & Modules | No answers on this topic |
| ||||||||||||||
| Offerings |
| |||||||||||||||
| Entry-level Setup Fee | Optional | $600 Single User | ||||||||||||||
| Additional Details | — | Hippo CMMS subscription pricing is determined based on the number of users. A user is anyone that needs to log in and access Hippo' s core features. Users include managers, owners, technicians, and supervisors. Maintenance requesters are not users. Price is also determined by required features. We have pricing plans for complex operations that require deeper functionality and plans for simple operations that are new to CMMS. | ||||||||||||||
| More Pricing Information | ||||||||||||||||
| CARL Source | Hippo CMMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Recommend | - | 2.0 |
| Support Rating | - | 8.6 |