Facilio versus Planon

Where they overlap

The overlap is the maintenance core, and it is real. Both platforms are cloud delivered. Both address asset records, work orders, preventive maintenance scheduling, mobile field work, reporting and building data from sensors and controls. For Planon these are all verified: Asset Lifecycle Management and Asset Attribute Management, a Reactive Work Orders module, Preventive Maintenance with a Maintenance Plan Viewer, work orders resolvable from smartphone or tablet, Connect for Analytics, and Connect for Building Advisor which turns building automation data into action. Facilio sits in the same operational territory with a stronger emphasis on connected building data as the starting point rather than as a connector bolted to a records system.

Where they differ

Planon covers ground Facilio is not built for. All fifteen capabilities tracked in this category are verified for Planon, including property and lease operations with a Lease Accounting Solution covering FASB and IASB, space management with floor plans and occupancy presented through a Kiosk, Procurement Management, Contract and SLA Management, Vendor and Warranty Management with vendor SLA adherence tracking, Health and Safety Management, and bidirectional OpenBIM integration alongside Connect for AutoCAD. A maintenance-first platform does not generally carry lease accounting or block and stack space planning, and should not be expected to.

The difference runs the other way too. Planon is an enterprise suite with the implementation weight that implies, and it publishes no public documentation or release notes at all; release information requires a customer portal login, so technical fit cannot be assessed before purchase. Products in the CMMS-first group, Facilio among them, are generally quicker to stand up and easier to evaluate hands-on. If your organisation needs a working work order process inside a quarter rather than a portfolio system inside a year, that difference dominates everything else. Get the work order taxonomy right either way, using work order types in a CMMS.

Deployment and integration

Both are cloud platforms. For Planon, on premise and hybrid availability could not be verified from published sources. Planon productises integration into named, purchasable connectors rather than leaving it to a services engagement: Connect for AutoCAD, Connect for OpenBIM, Connect for Building Advisor and Connect for Analytics, with SAP ERP, BMS, IoT sensors and Revit recorded as verified integration targets. Notably, Planon does not claim a REST API; it describes only web services or XML based integration. Cloud-native CMMS platforms typically lead with an API, so if your integration strategy is API-first, test that assumption against Planon explicitly. Where the building management system is the integration that matters, the BMS to CAFM integration reference architecture sets out the patterns.

Licensing posture

Planon publishes no price figure anywhere on its site. Licensing is quote only, every page routes to a demo request, and no trial is advertised, although Planon also makes no explicit statement that one does not exist. Cloud CMMS vendors more often publish per-user tiers, so check Facilio current published position directly rather than assuming parity. The practical consequence is that a like-for-like cost comparison between these two is not possible from public sources, and any such comparison you are shown in a sales cycle rests on a quote for one side and an assumption on the other.