Best for
Best for general, self-perform and specialty contractors planning who staffs which project, phase and role across a pipeline of bids.
- Enterprise
Resource Planning Comparison
At a glance
Best for
Best for general, self-perform and specialty contractors planning who staffs which project, phase and role across a pipeline of bids.
Best for
Best for accounting, audit and consulting firms scheduling large teams where skills and independence rules constrain who can take the work.
Cataleo does not name a winner. Both statements come from the vendors themselves.
| Criterion | Bridgit | Dayshape |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Quote-based Bridgit publishes no price list; the site routes to a demo or to sales. | Quote-based Licences are priced per resource managed in the platform, plus a one-off implementation fee. Dayshape publishes no amounts; quotes come from sales. |
| Free trial | Demo on request | Demo on request |
| API | Yes, a documented REST API at version 1.0 with token authentication, plus an MCP server over HTTP for AI clients | Yes, an API is offered for feeding in data such as staff skill matrices, alongside prebuilt integrations |
| Hosting | Cloud on AWS, hosted in the United States across multiple availability zones with disaster recovery in the central US; single sign-on via Microsoft and Google OAuth 2.0 or SAML | Cloud, hosted on Microsoft Azure within a private network behind a web application firewall, with access via single sign-on |
| Made in | Canada (Bridgit, Waterloo, Ontario) | United Kingdom (Dayshape, Edinburgh) |
| Resource planning | Yes, projects, phases and roles on one Gantt timeline with unfilled roles flagged, drag-and-drop allocation segments, bulk date shifts, a map view with driving distances, time off and AI-backed Smart Suggestions | Yes, an optimisation engine that scores suitability by skills, availability, location and experience across the whole portfolio, plus a drag-and-drop Gantt scheduler and forward-looking capacity forecasts |
| Task planning | No, planning goes down to project phases and roles rather than to individual tasks | No, planning stops at assigning people to work; task detail stays elsewhere |
| Time tracking | No, Bridgit plans and allocates people rather than recording hours; there is no timesheet in the product | No time entry of its own; timesheet data is integrated from other systems to compare billed against budgeted resource time |
| Reporting and controlling | Yes, custom reports and charts over people, project and pipeline data with a template library, saved for reuse and buildable by asking Bridgit AI in plain language, plus pipeline-based workforce forecasting | Yes, customisable dashboards and a drag-and-drop report builder over past, present and forecast data, plus real-time project financials |
| AI features | Yes | Yes |
| MCP-ready | stated Yes | No |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based | Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based |
| Support | Email helpdesk | Not stated |
| Onboarding | Guided onboarding, Personal consulting | more entries Guided onboarding, Live online demos and webinars, Personal consulting |
| Company size | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Integrations | more entries Autodesk Build, Procore, CMiC, Trimble, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics, Unanet CRM, HubSpot, Zoho, Pipedrive, Workday, BambooHR, UKG, Oracle, ADP, Namely, Snowflake, Microsoft Office 365 | Workday, SAP, SAP HANA, Oracle, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics, Microsoft Teams, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Deltek, IRIS, CCH, OpenHR, CatalystOne, Flowcase |
Adds a column to the table, from the tools in this category.
Row where the values differ The small markers point at the lower number, the longer list or the stated feature. They describe the data, they are not a verdict.
The short version
Every line is one datapoint from the table above, picked automatically. Nothing here is written text.
The trade-offs
Bridgit
Strengths
Limitations
Dayshape
Strengths
Limitations
Plans
Bridgit
Dayshape
What users say
Bridgit
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Dayshape
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Before sending, the author has to confirm three things: that they have used the product themselves, that they work neither for the vendor nor for a competitor, and that nobody is paying them for the review. We also ask whether the vendor invited them to write it. That answer is required, either answer is accepted, and it stays with the review.
Every review is read by a person before it appears. An email address is required and is confirmed: we send a link to it, and a review does not reach us until the author opens that link, so a review has a sender who was reachable at least once rather than being anonymous. Where what somebody writes needs backing, we ask them for evidence that they used the product, and a review that does not get it is not published. We publish positive and negative reviews alike, we pay nothing and offer nothing for a review, and we accept none that was bought or incentivised.
What we cannot do is verify a purchase. There is no shop here and no account, so whether the author really used the tool rests on their own declaration, on whatever we ask them for, and on the plausibility of what they write. We say so rather than implying a check that does not exist.
A vendor cannot buy a review, and cannot have one removed or changed because they dislike it. We remove or edit a review only if it breaks our rules or the law, for example a false statement of fact. Paid placement has no effect on which reviews appear or on any score.
Where this comes from
Bridgit https://gobridgit.com · checked against the official source on 2026-09-11
Dayshape https://dayshape.com · checked against the official source on 2026-09-30
This table lists factual criteria taken from information the vendors publish themselves. For how we put it together, see the methodology.