Quentic vs Share@Work
Share@Work scores 54 points higher than Quentic in contractor management software on our published criteria.
Where do they differ?
On the criteria for which we found a source for both, they do not differ.
No source for at least one of the two: prequalification of contractors, tracking of certificates and expiry dates, registration and access on site, online safety induction, withholding obligation check (NSSO and tax authorities) and works in Dutch and French. Ask the vendor.
| Data per criterion | Quentic | Share@Work |
|---|---|---|
| Contractor management software | 15 /100 | 69 /100 |
| Prequalification of contractors | Insufficient data | ✓ Yes |
| Tracking of certificates and expiry dates | Insufficient data | ✓ Yes |
| Registration and access on site | Insufficient data | ✓ Yes |
| Online safety induction | ✓ Yes | Insufficient data |
| Withholding obligation check (NSSO and tax authorities) | Insufficient data | ✓ Yes |
| Works in Dutch and French | Insufficient data | Insufficient data |
| Price public on the website | No | No |
| Registration methods | Insufficient data | Insufficient data |
| Languages | NL, FR, EN | NL |
| Price from | Unknown | Unknown |
-
Quentic
Industrial sites that want to digitise safety instructions for external parties within their EHS platform.
-
Share@Work
Main contractors that want to link the check of the subcontracting chain to access to the site.