The Best Kojo Alternatives for Construction Procurement (2026)

People look for Kojo alternatives for four fairly distinct reasons, and the right answer is different for each.

The trade fit is wrong. The ERP integration is missing. The rollout looks too heavy. Or — most commonly, and least well served by this category — the actual problem is not procurement at all.

This guide covers the real alternatives and matches them to the reason.

One disclosure: we build CostCrunch, which is not a Kojo alternative — we do no requisitions, purchase orders, receiving, or inventory. We appear at the end, in the section about the fourth reason. On pricing: none of the vendors in this category publish it, including Kojo, and this guide says so rather than repeating third-party estimates.

What Kojo is, so the comparison is fair

Kojo (formerly Agora) is the most established materials procurement platform for trade contractors. It covers the full lifecycle: field requisitions from a phone against a pre-built vendor catalog, RFQs, purchase orders, receiving, invoice reconciliation, inventory, warehouse management, and tool tracking, organized into Warehouse, Procurement, and Finance modules.

Its published trade list is concrete, drywall, electrical, flooring, mechanical, and roofing. Electrical is its origin trade, and it publishes an electrical contractor materials purchasing benchmark report.

Its pricing page publishes no figures, but does state unlimited users and data with no hidden fees — which is a meaningful commitment in a category where seat counts often drive cost.

Published customer outcomes include contractors catching over $1,200 in supplier billing errors in four weeks, a 90% shorter ordering process, and a 75% reduction in purchase order processing time.

Where it falls down, and these are the reasons people go looking: reviews consistently flag the learning curve; the pre-built catalog depth that makes it strong in MEP thins out considerably outside its listed trades; it is a full implementation rather than a signup, with catalog setup, integration configuration, and training across field, purchasing, and accounting; and its price visibility is limited to transactions that ran through Kojo — it compares you against your own history, not the market.

Reason 1: the trade fit is wrong

The most common legitimate reason, and the fastest to diagnose. Check the published trade list above.

Steel framing is the clearest gap — it does not appear on Kojo's list at all, and neither does structural steel. If you frame in metal stud or fabricate structural steel, the catalog advantage that justifies much of Kojo's value simply is not there for you. Our steel framing software guide covers what does exist for that trade, which is less than you would hope.

The alternatives when trade fit is the issue

SubBase is the least trade-locked option in the category. Material requests can come from a pre-loaded catalog, a photo, or conversational AI, which means the workflow does not depend on a trade-specific catalog existing. It targets commercial specialty trade contractors and self-performing GCs above roughly $10M with multiple active projects, and includes AI invoice reconciliation matching line items and verifying cost codes, plus historical price analysis. Pricing not published.

Where it falls down. Younger than Kojo, so ask for references at your size and trade rather than accepting general ones. Analytics only cover what ran through the platform. No tool tracking, and less prefab depth.

DigiBuild attacks price rather than process — automated takeoff from drawing sets, then RFQs to many suppliers at once, with quotes back in minutes. It serves subs, GCs, and owners rather than a fixed trade list, and claims roughly 5% better material pricing. Not published.

Where it falls down. Its savings come from competitive bidding, meaning comparison against the quotes you happened to receive rather than against independent market data, and nothing verifies that the winning quote is what appears on the invoice.

Reason 2: the ERP integration is missing

If you are on CMiC, Viewpoint, Deltek ComputerEase, or Foundation, this is likely your reason, and it has a clear answer.

Field Materials has the deepest ERP integration list in the category: Procore, CMiC, Foundation, Sage 100 Contractor, Sage 300 CRE, Sage Intacct, Viewpoint Vista and Spectrum, Deltek ComputerEase, and QuickBooks Online and Desktop. It leans further toward accounting than Kojo does — AI quote scanning to eliminate PO data entry, automated three-way validation of incoming invoices, and posting to your ERP. Per SMACNA it processes over $700M in annual material purchases across 12 trades and 30 states, and in February 2026 it launched Pricing Intelligence, a material price dashboard built from vendor quotes and invoices. Not published.

Where it falls down. Its price intelligence is built from documents flowing through its own platform, so coverage depends on your volume being in it. The AP-first orientation means the field-facing workflow gets less design attention than SubBase's. And three-way matching requires POs to exist, so the tail of unplanned purchases sits outside it.

Trimble Materials is the former StructShare, which Trimble acquired in May 2025 — if you evaluated StructShare previously, this is the same product under new ownership. Its case is ERP support for Viewpoint Vista, Spectrum, Foundation, Sage 300, and Procore, plus the roadmap stability of Trimble ownership. Not published. We should flag that our own current-detail coverage of this product is thinner than for the others here, so verify capabilities directly rather than relying on this summary.

Reason 3: the rollout looks too heavy

A legitimate concern, and the one most likely to be right.

A procurement platform is a system of record, and its value is proportional to how completely your team uses it. If foremen keep calling the supply house directly, the data is incomplete and most of the promised savings do not materialize. Technology rollouts stall on employee resistance more than on capability, and field-facing tools carry the most of that risk.

SubBase is the answer built specifically around this failure mode. The flexible request methods — catalog, photo, or conversational AI — exist so that a foreman who will not navigate a catalog can send a picture instead. If you have watched a previous rollout fail, weight this heavily.

Raiven is a different response to the same problem: rather than changing how your team orders, it operates closer to a sourcing intermediary, automating supplier follow-up, parsing and leveling quotes, and applying a best-value ranking across lead time, freight, availability, and rebates on top of a network of pre-negotiated supplier pricing. Strongest for electrical, HVAC, and multi-trade contractors. Not published.

Where Raiven falls down. Savings are partly a function of buying inside its network, which is a different proposition from verifying that your existing suppliers are competitive — and it creates a structural tension, since the party recommending the supplier benefits from the routing. If you have long-standing local supplier relationships with earned pricing, moving that volume may cost more than it saves once service and terms are counted. It does not audit invoices.

The honest option nobody sells you: do not roll out a procurement platform. If ordering basically works, the rollout risk may exceed the benefit, which leads directly to the fourth reason.

Reason 4: your problem is not procurement

This is the most common misdiagnosis in the category, and worth stating directly.

Procurement platforms impose control on how material gets ordered. They are the right purchase when ordering is genuinely chaotic: no purchase orders, no records, no visibility between order and delivery, constant "did that order go in?"

They are the wrong purchase when ordering works and the real question is whether your prices are good. That is a different question with a different data requirement, and no procurement platform answers it well — because they all verify against your own documents.

Kojo, Field Materials, SubBase, Trimble Materials, and DigiBuild all confirm that the invoice agrees with the purchase order and the delivery. That is three-way matching, it catches quantity errors and duplicate billing, and it structurally cannot tell you the price on that PO was 11% over market when you agreed to it. Every document matches. You still overpaid.

The tell that this is your situation: your ordering process is fine, nobody is confused about what was purchased, and you simply do not know whether you are paying competitive prices.

What about Procurify and Precoro?

Both are capable horizontal procure-to-pay platforms handling requisitions, approvals, purchase orders, budgets, and AP well for mid-market companies.

Neither ships a construction material taxonomy or construction price data, which makes them better suited to your overhead and office spend than to materials. Procurify's stated focus verticals are education, technology, healthcare, and biotech. Neither's pricing is reliably documented — third-party sources for Precoro in particular contradict each other by an order of magnitude, so get a quote rather than trusting any figure you find.

They are alternatives to Kojo in the sense that they are procurement software. They are not alternatives in the sense of doing the same job for a contractor.

Quick comparison

Where CostCrunch fits — and where it doesn't

We build CostCrunch, so treat this accordingly.

It is not a Kojo alternative, and we would rather say so than sell you the wrong thing. No requisitions, no purchase orders, no RFQ issuing, no receiving, no inventory, no tool tracking. If material ordering is your problem, buy one of the platforms above — several of our own comparison posts recommend a competitor outright, including our Kojo comparison.

What it does is answer the fourth reason. You forward material and supply invoices to an email address, every line item is extracted at 99% accuracy, and each is checked against your own purchase history and local market rates. Overcharges, duplicate charges, quantity errors, and gradual price creep are flagged before you approve, and verified line-item data syncs to QuickBooks, Sage, or FreshBooks.

Two practical differences from everything above: it audits all material spend including counter pickups, will-calls, and emergency runs that never touched a purchase order — which for most contractors is a meaningful and poorly controlled share — and it requires no workflow change, so there is no field adoption risk to weigh. Setup takes about five minutes and there is a free tier.

Some contractors run it instead of a procurement platform because their purchasing already works. Others run it alongside one, on the reasoning that the system generating the PO should not be the only thing checking the PO. Both are defensible. If ordering is chaos, start with the platform.

Across $125M+ in audited invoices from 500+ companies, contractors overpay an average of 4-8% on materials — $20,000 to $40,000 a year on $500K of material spend.

Frequently asked questions

What are the best alternatives to Kojo?

It depends on why Kojo is not the fit. If the trade is wrong, SubBase is the least trade-locked option and DigiBuild serves subs, general contractors, and owners without a fixed trade list. If the ERP integration is missing, Field Materials has the deepest coverage including CMiC, Viewpoint, Deltek ComputerEase, and Foundation, and Trimble Materials suits firms already on Viewpoint or Sage 300. If field adoption is the risk, SubBase's flexible request methods address it directly and Raiven avoids changing how your team orders at all.

Does Kojo work for all trades?

Kojo's published trade list is concrete, drywall, electrical, flooring, mechanical, and roofing, with electrical as its origin trade. It can read material outside those, but much of its value comes from pre-built vendor catalogs and trade-specific depth built for those trades, and that advantage thins considerably elsewhere. Steel framing and structural steel are not on the list, so contractors in those trades should discount the catalog benefits when evaluating and judge it on workflow and invoice-side features instead.

How much does Kojo cost?

Kojo does not publish pricing. Its pricing page states unlimited users and data with no hidden fees but gives no figures, and quotes follow a demo. That is the norm in this category — Field Materials, SubBase, Trimble Materials, DigiBuild, and Raiven all quote after a demo as well. Beyond the subscription, budget for implementation: catalog and vendor setup, integration configuration, and training across field, purchasing, and accounting are real costs, and marketing timelines for this category are consistently optimistic.

Is Kojo worth the implementation effort?

It depends on whether your ordering process is genuinely disorganized. Procurement platforms are systems of record whose value is proportional to consistent use, so if foremen continue calling the supply house directly the data is incomplete and most projected savings do not appear. Ask reference customers what percentage of their material requests actually originate in the platform six months after go-live — that number predicts your outcome better than any feature list. If ordering already works and your real question is price competitiveness, a procurement rollout is a slow and expensive way to answer it.

What happened to StructShare?

Trimble acquired StructShare in May 2025 and rebranded it Trimble Materials. It is the same procurement product — field requisitions, RFQs, receiving, inventory, invoice matching, and analytics — under Trimble ownership, with ERP support for Viewpoint Vista, Spectrum, Foundation, Sage 300, and Procore. If you shortlisted StructShare previously, evaluate it under the new name, and verify current capabilities directly since public product detail under the new branding is thinner than for its competitors.

Do procurement platforms tell you if you are overpaying for materials?

Only partially. They verify that an invoice matches the purchase order and the receiving record — three-way matching — and compare the quotes you received against each other. What most do not do is benchmark a unit price against current local market rates, which requires external price data rather than your own transaction records. An invoice can match its purchase order perfectly and still reflect a price well above market. They also cannot see spend that bypassed the platform, such as counter pickups and emergency runs.

Are Procurify and Precoro good alternatives to Kojo for contractors?

They are capable horizontal procure-to-pay platforms, handling requisitions, approvals, purchase orders, budgets, and accounts payable well for mid-market companies, but neither ships a construction material taxonomy or construction price data. That makes them better suited to overhead and office spend than to construction materials, and Procurify's stated focus verticals are education, technology, healthcare, and biotech. Their published pricing is also unreliable — third-party sources for Precoro contradict each other substantially — so get a direct quote.

Should I replace Kojo or add something to it?

If the gap is trade fit or ERP support, replacement is the right conversation. If the gap is that Kojo tells you what you ordered and paid but not whether the price was competitive, that is not solved by a different procurement platform, since they all verify against your own documents. In that case adding invoice auditing alongside is the narrower and cheaper fix, and it carries no field adoption risk because it does not change how anyone orders.

---

The useful diagnostic in this whole category is one question: is your problem how material gets ordered, or what it costs?

Procurement platforms are genuinely good at the first and structurally unable to answer the second, because they work from documents you generated. Getting that distinction right before the demos start will save you a quarter.

Try CostCrunch free on your own invoices and see whether your prices are the problem before you roll out a platform.

Last verified: August 19, 2026. Vendor pricing and capabilities change frequently, and none of the vendors in this category publish pricing. Verify current details directly before deciding — and if we have described any product inaccurately, tell us and we'll correct it.