Quentic vs Yokogawa RAP Permit to Work
Yokogawa RAP Permit to Work scores 8 points higher than Quentic in permit to work systems 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: detection of conflicting works, works in Dutch and French and price public on the website. Ask the vendor.
| Data per criterion | Quentic | Yokogawa RAP Permit to Work |
|---|---|---|
| Permit to work systems | 71 /100 | 79 /100 |
| Digital permits to work with an approval flow | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Isolation management (LOTO) | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Detection of conflicting works | Insufficient data | Insufficient data |
| Risk assessment linked to the permit | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Mobile app in the field | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Works in Dutch and French | Insufficient data | ✓ Yes |
| Price public on the website | No | Insufficient data |
| Registration methods | Insufficient data | Insufficient data |
| Languages | NL, FR, EN | NL, FR, EN |
| Price from | Unknown | Unknown |
-
Quentic
Industrial sites that want to digitise safety instructions for external parties within their EHS platform.
-
Yokogawa RAP Permit to Work
Process and energy sites looking for a specialised Control of Work package with isolation management.