Infor EAM vs Hexagon EAM: What the Deal Means for Buyers

If you are comparing Infor EAM and Hexagon EAM, the first thing to understand is that they were once the same product. In 2021 Hexagon acquired Infor's global enterprise asset management business, and the standalone product most people knew as Infor EAM was renamed HxGN EAM. That single fact reshapes the whole comparison. This is not a story about two rivals that grew up side by side. It is a story about one product line, one ownership change, and the practical questions that change creates for buyers and for customers who are already running the software.

My aim here is narrow and deliberate. I want to explain what the deal actually was, keep it strictly to what has been publicly stated, and then help you turn that into the right questions for your own contract. I will not speculate about whether any product will be retired, because no responsible reader should make a seven-figure decision on a guess. I will name where each offering is genuinely strong today, and I will show you how to protect yourself contractually whenever a vendor consolidates a portfolio.

My criteria, and where my experience sits

Before any comparison, you deserve to know the lens I am using and where my bias could sit. I have implemented and integrated asset management platforms for more than twenty-two years across ERP, EAM and CAFM. I have delivered work on both the former Infor EAM lineage and its successor under Hexagon, and I have integrated asset systems into Infor CloudSuite and third-party ERP alike. I am not a reseller for either vendor, and I hold no incentive tied to which one you choose.

The criteria I apply, in order, are:

• Fit for your industry and asset classes, not generic feature counts.
• Ownership and roadmap clarity, so you know who develops the product you buy.
• Support terms in writing, including the committed period and the escalation path.
• Data portability, so your records are never hostage to a platform decision.
• Total cost across the contract term, including integration and migration effort.

Everything below is measured against those five. Where I state a fact about the deal, it comes from public statements by the companies involved. Where I raise a question, it is because the public record does not answer it and you should ask the vendor directly.

What the deal actually was

In July 2021, Hexagon AB announced an agreement to acquire Infor's global EAM business, and the transaction completed on 1 October 2021. Infor is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, and as part of the deal Infor took an equity stake in Hexagon and the two companies described an ongoing strategic relationship. The product that Infor had sold as Infor EAM was rebranded HxGN EAM, sometimes written as Hexagon EAM, and its development moved to Hexagon.

So the ownership change is precise and public. What it means in plain terms is this. The standalone EAM product and the team behind it moved to Hexagon. Infor continued to offer asset management capability, now delivered inside its industry ERP under the Infor CloudSuite EAM name. Two brands now exist where buyers used to see one, and both trace back through the same heritage.

What the deal does not tell you, on its own, is anything about the future direction of either product. A change of owner is not a statement of intent about features, pricing or lifecycle. Those come from the vendor's own roadmap communications, and they should be read from official sources and dated, not inferred from the fact that a sale happened.

How the two lines were positioned before the deal

Before October 2021 there was effectively one recognised product in this lineage: Infor EAM, a mature, industry-configurable asset management platform used by thousands of organisations. Alongside it, Infor also embedded asset and maintenance management inside its broader ERP suites, so a manufacturer running Infor's ERP could manage assets without a separate standalone system. The standalone product and the ERP-embedded capability served overlapping needs from two different starting points.

When the deal closed, that split hardened into two distinct offerings under two owners. The standalone platform became HxGN EAM under Hexagon, carrying forward the heritage strengths in asset-intensive operations. Infor CloudSuite EAM continued the ERP-native path, strongest where asset management sits inside a wider Infor CloudSuite deployment. If you evaluated this lineage a few years ago, that context matters, because the reference points you remember now belong to two separate roadmaps.

Where they genuinely overlap, and where they do not

Because of the shared heritage, the overlap is real and worth stating honestly. Both cover the core of enterprise asset management: an asset register, preventive and reactive maintenance, work order management, materials and spares, and reliability-oriented reporting. A buyer whose needs stop at that core could be served by either, and long-standing customers will recognise familiar concepts in both.

The genuine differences are about owner, direction and industry emphasis, and this is where the two now diverge:

• Hexagon EAM (HxGN EAM) carries clear strengths in utilities, transport and transit, oil and gas, and asset-intensive process industries. It fits organisations whose assets are the business, with strong support for regulated environments and linear or geographically distributed assets. It integrates to third-party ERP rather than assuming one.
• Infor CloudSuite EAM is strongest for manufacturing and for multi-tenant CloudSuite deployments, where asset management is one capability within an industry ERP that also runs production, finance and supply chain. If your organisation already stands on Infor CloudSuite, the native path reduces integration effort.

Notice what I am not saying. I am not claiming one is being wound down, or that the other is the safe default. Both are actively offered as of the date on this page. The distinction that should drive your choice is fit for your industry and your surrounding systems, not a prediction about which brand outlasts the other. To place either inside the wider category landscape, my guide on which CAFM, CMMS or EAM is right for you may help. For a deeper look at the Hexagon product itself, see my introduction to Hexagon EAM.

The comparison at a glance

This table summarises the practical differences and, in the last column, gives you the question to raise with the vendor for each dimension. Treat the questions as the real output. The rows are current as of the date shown and should be re-verified before any commitment.

The questions to put to the vendor in writing

A sales conversation gives you reassurance. A written answer gives you leverage. Whenever a product has changed hands or a portfolio is being consolidated, the difference between the two is the difference between comfort and protection. Ask for the following in writing, on vendor letterhead or in the contract itself, and keep the dated reply.

On roadmap and lifecycle:

• Is the product I am buying receiving continued feature investment, and where is that stated officially?
• What is your published support lifecycle for my version and deployment model?
• If any capability is being consolidated with another product, what is the timeline and what migration support is offered?

On support and continuity:

• Which legal entity holds my support agreement after the ownership change?
• What are the committed response and resolution terms, and for how long are they guaranteed?
• Who is my named escalation contact, and does that change if the product moves teams again?

On integration and data:

• Which integration methods are supported today, and are any deprecated on a known timeline?
• In what formats can I export my complete dataset, including history and attachments, and at what cost?

How to protect yourself contractually

You cannot control a vendor's portfolio decisions, but you can make sure any such decision leaves you whole. During any consolidation, the contract is your safety net. Whether you are renewing an existing agreement or signing a new one, insist on these five protections. They apply equally to Infor CloudSuite EAM, to HxGN EAM, and frankly to any enterprise platform.

None of these five are aggressive. They are the standard terms any well-run procurement team should already seek, and a confident vendor will accommodate them. If a vendor resists putting continuity and data-export terms in writing, that resistance is itself useful information.

The bottom line

Infor EAM and Hexagon EAM share a heritage, and a 2021 deal separated them into two owners with two roadmaps. For buyers, the practical takeaway is not to pick a winner from the ownership change. It is to choose on industry fit, on your surrounding ERP, and on the strength of the written commitments you can secure. If your world is manufacturing and Infor CloudSuite, the CloudSuite EAM path is the natural fit. If your world is utilities, transport or process operations, the HxGN EAM lineage carries deep strengths. Either way, let the contract, not the headline, carry your risk. For a related head-to-head, my comparison of Maximo vs Infor EAM covers a different but adjacent decision.