Facilio versus Archibus

Where they overlap

Both cover the operational core. For Archibus, verified capabilities include BIM powered asset management covering lifecycle, location and condition, with Asset Portal, Enterprise Assets and Telecom Inventory Management documented; corrective and preventive maintenance modules; a documented Service Desk; condition assessment, compliance and health and safety modules; work logging from any device including offline through OnSite and mobile apps; and report manager with BIRT reporting and scheduled reports. Facilio operates on the same ground from a cloud-native starting point, with connected building data as a first-class input rather than an integration.

Both are also cloud available. The difference is that Archibus adds a verified on premise option, which matters for government, defence and some healthcare buyers and is increasingly rare in this category.

Where they differ

Archibus carries real estate scope that a maintenance-first platform does not: lease and contract management with centralised lease data and automated alerts, a documented Real Property module, space planning with drag and drop layouts, and a Portfolio module with space inventory, chargeback, occupancy, planning and moves. If your requirement includes chargeback to business units or lease event alerting, that is a straightforward reason to prefer the IWMS.

Three Archibus capabilities could not be verified from published sources: SLA and KPI management, contractor management, and procurement. Those are recorded as unverified, not absent. Capital project vendor handling is implied in the material but never named as contractor or supplier management. For an outsourced FM operation or a service provider running client contracts, that is the first thing to script into a demo, and SLA matrix design for FM operations sets out what a credible answer looks like.

Deployment, documentation and the buying route

Archibus publishes a module level Knowledge Center without a login, with a stated core release of Archibus V.2026.01, which is genuinely useful for pre-purchase assessment and rarer in this category than it should be. Against that, the Archibus estate spans legacy Web Central alongside newer SaaS, Workplace and OnSite clients, so capability parity across deployment flavours is not uniform and you should confirm which client each demonstrated feature belongs to. Verified integration targets are IoT sensors, GIS and Revit or BIM; the generic Microsoft label on the product page is too vague to support SharePoint, Teams, Outlook or Power BI claims, so none are recorded. BMS is not recorded as an Archibus integration because only IoT systems is named.

The procurement route is the sharpest structural difference. Archibus is sold only through Eptura partners, so there is no direct vendor pricing and no self serve entry. A cloud platform such as Facilio is normally bought direct. That changes who you negotiate with, who implements, and who you escalate to when something breaks.

Licensing posture

Archibus publishes no price figure. The Eptura pricing page carries comparison tables with no currency amounts, states that agreements run for no less than one year and that annual fees are based on user counts, and at verification still contained unfinished placeholder text. Only a demo is offered; there is no trial. Because the deal is partner-led, the price you get depends on the partner as well as the product. Cloud CMMS vendors are more likely to publish tiers, so check Facilio own current published position rather than assuming either way. A direct cost comparison is not possible from public sources.