Methodology
Last Updated: April 14, 2026
This page describes exactly how Field Service Guide evaluates field service management (“FSM“) software, how we score platforms, and what goes into every review on the site. We publish this methodology in full because we believe readers deserve to understand how our rankings are produced.
Our Approach in One Paragraph
Field Service Guide is an AI-enabled research publication. For every platform we cover, we use AI to ingest and synthesize a large body of publicly available evidence — vendor documentation, pricing disclosures, several thousand customer reviews aggregated across G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, GetApp, and Software Advice, independent industry coverage, regulatory filings where applicable, and community discussions — and apply a consistent scoring framework administered by human editors. We do not conduct hands-on field trials of every platform. We believe evidence drawn from thousands of real customer experiences, applied through a consistent framework, produces more comprehensive and less biased analysis than a single reviewer’s limited personal trial.
1. Sources We Analyze for Every Platform
For each platform, our research ingests (subject to availability):
- Vendor documentation — product pages, feature pages, pricing pages, integration directories, help centers, release notes, and knowledge bases.
- Customer reviews — we aggregate verified reviews and ratings across G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, GetApp, Software Advice, and Google Reviews. For platforms with substantial social presence, we also analyze user sentiment in long-form forums (Reddit, LinkedIn, trade-specific communities).
- Independent industry coverage — coverage by industry publications, analyst reports (where publicly available), and comparison content from other reputable sources.
- Financial and regulatory disclosures — for public companies or companies that otherwise publish financial information (e.g., ServiceTitan’s SEC filings since its 2024 IPO), we incorporate disclosed product, customer, and business information.
- Community discussions — trade-specific forums and communities where actual operators discuss the platforms they use day-to-day.
For a single platform, a typical analysis incorporates several thousand distinct data points.
2. Scoring Framework
Every platform is scored against the same six dimensions. Each dimension is evaluated on a 0–10 scale and weighted as shown. The overall FSG Score is a weighted average expressed on a 0–10 scale.
| Dimension | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Core Workflow Coverage | 25% | Quality and depth of the essential FSM workflows: customer management, scheduling and dispatching, mobile field operations, invoicing, and payment processing. |
| Mobile Functionality | 20% | Quality of the mobile app on both iOS and Android — based on vendor documentation, mobile-specific customer reviews, and app store ratings. Evaluates offline capability, photo/signature capture, invoicing, and navigation. |
| Pricing Transparency | 15% | How clearly the vendor publishes pricing, including base plans, per-user fees, payment processing rates, onboarding costs, and feature-gating. |
| Integration Ecosystem | 15% | Breadth and depth of integrations — especially QuickBooks (Online and Desktop), Google Calendar, accounting, payments, and trade-specific tools. Native vs. Zapier distinction matters. |
| Customer Support Quality | 15% | Response time, channel coverage (phone/chat/email), self-service resources, and sentiment in customer reviews specifically about support experiences. |
| Trade-Specific Fit | 10% | How well the platform fits the specific trade(s) it targets — HVAC, plumbing, electrical, landscaping, pest control, cleaning, pool service, etc. |
3. How Dimensions Are Scored
Each dimension score is derived from a combination of:
- Verified vendor disclosures — what the vendor documents and publishes about the capability.
- Aggregated customer sentiment — the central tendency and distribution of customer ratings across independent review platforms, weighted by review count and recency.
- Independent coverage — assessments in industry publications and analyst coverage.
- Editorial calibration — human review to reconcile conflicting signals, weight recency, and apply trade-specific context. No single source is allowed to dominate a score.
4. Trade-Specific Weighting
When a platform is evaluated for a specific trade (e.g., “Best HVAC Software”), we re-weight dimensions to reflect what matters for that trade. For example, trades with heavy regulatory documentation needs (electrical, pest control) receive higher weight on compliance and paperwork features. Trades with high mobile intensity (HVAC techs in crawl spaces, roofers on rooftops) receive higher weight on offline mobile functionality. These trade-specific rubrics are documented on each “Best [Trade]” page.
5. Pricing Methodology
Where vendors publish pricing, we document the complete picture: base plan, per-user fees, add-on costs, payment processing rates, onboarding fees, and feature-gating. Where vendors obscure pricing (quote-only, enterprise-only), we state so explicitly and capture price ranges from customer reports and third-party references where possible. We note when feature-gating makes a lower-tier plan impractical for the use case the tier appears to target.
6. AI-Assisted Analysis
We use AI to:
- Ingest and summarize large volumes of customer-review text across multiple platforms and time periods.
- Extract structured signals (pricing, feature presence, integration coverage, support experiences) from unstructured sources.
- Detect inconsistencies, outliers, and shifts over time.
- Surface sentiment trends that would be impossible to manually read at scale.
A human editor reviews every AI-assisted analysis, validates claims against source material, and is responsible for final scores, rankings, and recommendations. AI does not publish content on Field Service Guide without editorial review.
7. What We Do Not Do
- We do not conduct hands-on field trials of every platform. We disclose this transparently so readers can weigh our methodology appropriately.
- We do not fabricate customer reviews, testimonials, or review counts.
- We do not include untested custom claims from vendor marketing copy unless they are supported by independent sources.
- We do not change rankings based on commercial relationships.
8. Update Cadence
FSM software changes frequently. We refresh each review when any of the following occur:
- A material pricing change is announced or detected.
- A major feature release, discontinuation, or significant UI/UX change occurs.
- A meaningful volume of new customer reviews shifts the aggregated sentiment picture.
- A material corporate event (acquisition, management change, IPO, bankruptcy) affects the platform.
Every review displays a “last updated” date. We aim to fully re-evaluate every major platform at least once per year.
9. Transparency and Feedback
If you believe a score or ranking is wrong, or you have direct customer experience that should inform our analysis, please email hello@fieldserviceguide.com. We take substantive feedback seriously and will investigate. See our Editorial Policy for our corrections and revisions process.
10. Changes to This Methodology
We may revise this Methodology page from time to time to reflect refinements to our scoring framework, new data sources, or new analytical techniques. Material changes will be accompanied by an updated “Last Updated” date.
Related: Editorial Policy · Terms of Use · Privacy Policy · About