# project44 vs FourKites: Which Freight Visibility Wins in 2026?

project44 carries 4.7/5 across 691 G2 reviews, the largest evidence base of any visibility vendor. FourKites carries 4.5/5 with deeper dock and yard tooling.

project44 wins on raw evidence and network breadth: 4.7/5 across 691 G2 reviews, the largest community track record in this category, and multimodal coverage across truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, and ocean that a smaller vendor cannot match. FourKites wins for shippers whose pain sits at the dock, not on the road: a decade of retail and CPG distribution-center relationships gives it deeper yard and appointment tooling than project44 has built. Neither publishes pricing, and neither books a load, so both require an existing TMS underneath and a custom quote that third-party research pegs near $100 to $500 per user per month. Pick project44 if your freight spans modes and carriers you do not fully control. Pick FourKites if you are a retail or CPG shipper and detention at your own facilities is the actual cost driver.

## Key facts

- project44 carries 4.7/5 across 691 G2 reviews, the largest review base of any real-time freight visibility platform. FourKites carries 4.5/5 across 270 reviews, the second largest.
- Neither vendor publishes pricing. Third-party research places premium visibility platforms at roughly $100 to $500 per user per month depending on modal coverage, before integration and setup fees.
- project44 wins on carrier network breadth: truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, and ocean in one API, with LTL coverage that reviewers say is deeper than rivals.
- FourKites wins on dock and yard visibility for retail, CPG, and manufacturing shippers, where detention and demurrage costs are driven by what happens at the facility, not on the highway.
- Neither books freight. Both sit on top of an existing TMS, so a shipper without one is buying half a system regardless of which visibility vendor it picks.

## Tools compared

### project44

Score: 9.1/10  Rating: 4.7/5 (G2 · 691 reviews)

**Starting price:** Custom quote (est. $100-$500/user/mo)

**Best for:** Shippers and 3PLs tracking multimodal freight at scale

**Standout:** Largest carrier network and review base in the category

**Weakness:** Visibility layer only, needs a TMS underneath


### FourKites

Score: 8.6/10  Rating: 4.5/5 (G2 · 270 reviews)

**Starting price:** Custom quote (est. $100-$250/user/mo)

**Best for:** Retail, CPG, and manufacturing shippers

**Standout:** Dock and yard visibility depth

**Weakness:** Smaller review base and network than project44



## Side-by-side

| Criterion | project44 | FourKites |
|---|---|---|
| G2 rating | 4.7/5 | 4.5/5 |
| G2 review count | 691 | 270 |
| Pricing model | Custom quote, per user or per shipment | Custom quote, per user or per shipment |
| Published pricing | None | None |
| Modes covered | Truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, ocean | Truckload, LTL, rail, ocean |
| Books or tenders freight | No, visibility layer only | No, visibility layer only |
| Dock and yard visibility | Included, secondary strength | Category strength |
| Predictive ETA | Yes, improves with network density | Yes |
| Primary buyer base | Shippers, 3PLs, brokers across modes | Retail, CPG, manufacturing shippers |
| SOC 2 / GDPR | Both listed | Both listed |
| Biggest weakness cited by reviewers | Carrier onboarding is a months-long chase, not a vendor task | Smaller multimodal reach than project44 |
| Our score (out of 10) | 9.1 | 8.6 |

## More


*Affiliate note: some links below are affiliate links and we may earn a commission at no cost to you. Rankings are never sold. This is a research-led comparison built from a G2 review sample read on July 27, 2026, vendor documentation, and published third-party pricing research. See our [testing methodology](/about/methodology/).*

## What project44 and FourKites actually cost {#pricing}

Neither vendor publishes a rate card. Both sell on a custom quote, priced per user or per shipment on an annual contract, and both push buyers to a sales call before revealing a number.

Third-party pricing research places core over-the-road visibility in the **$100 to $250 per user per month** range for both platforms. Add multimodal coverage (ocean, rail, parcel) and project44's quote can climb toward **$500 per user per month**, reflecting the broader network it is selling access to.

Neither number includes integration or setup fees, which reviewers on both platforms describe as a separate line item that shows up after the demo, not during it. A shipper evaluating either vendor should ask for the full year-one number in writing: subscription, integration work, and any per-shipment overage above a committed volume.

The structural similarity matters more than any headline figure. Both platforms price on the same axis, users or shipments, so the real cost comparison is not vendor A versus vendor B, it is how many carriers you actually need connected and how many seats you need logged in.

## TCO at 5, 25, and 100 seats {#cost-math}

Because neither vendor publishes tiers, this is modeled from the third-party pricing bands above rather than a published rate card. Treat it as a planning range, not a quote.

| Team size | project44 (est. $100-$500/user/mo) | FourKites (est. $100-$250/user/mo) |
|---|---:|---:|
| 5 seats | $6,000 - $30,000/year | $6,000 - $15,000/year |
| 25 seats | $30,000 - $150,000/year | $30,000 - $75,000/year |
| 100 seats | $120,000 - $600,000/year | $120,000 - $300,000/year |

The wide bands are the honest picture in a category with zero published pricing. FourKites tends to land toward the lower end of its range for shippers concentrated in over-the-road freight. project44's range climbs faster once a buyer adds ocean, rail, and parcel coverage, because that multimodal breadth is exactly what the higher quote is paying for.

Neither figure includes carrier onboarding effort, which is a real cost even though it does not show up on an invoice. Getting a regional carrier onto ELD data sharing takes internal staff time chasing a signature, not a line item either vendor bills for directly.

## Which tier you'll actually land on {#tier-gating}

Neither platform publishes named tiers, so there is no public feature-gating table the way there is for a self-serve SaaS product. What buyers report instead is a segmented sales motion where the quote, and what it includes, depends on your shipment volume, modal mix, and how hard you negotiate.

**project44.** Core over-the-road and LTL visibility is the entry conversation. Multimodal add-ons (ocean, rail, parcel) and deeper API access, custom analytics, and dedicated onboarding sit in the enterprise conversation, priced separately.

**FourKites.** Core over-the-road tracking is the entry point. Yard and dock visibility, appointment management, and detention analytics are the upsell, and for a retail or CPG shipper that is usually the reason to buy FourKites in the first place, not an add-on afterthought.

The practical implication: neither vendor will quote you a real number until they know your shipment volume, carrier list, and which modes you need. Come to the first call with that data ready, because the vendor will ask for it before naming a price either way.

## Where project44 pulls ahead {#project44-wins}

**Carrier network breadth.** Truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, and ocean in one API and one dashboard. Reviewers specifically call out the LTL coverage as deeper than what competing visibility platforms have built, which matters for shippers running a mixed-mode network rather than pure truckload.

**Community evidence.** 691 G2 reviews at 4.7/5 is the largest review base in the entire freight visibility category, and the satisfaction score holds across a buyer mix running from mid-market 3PLs to Fortune 100 shippers. That is unusual at that review volume; most platforms see satisfaction drift downward as the buyer base widens.

**Predictive ETA quality.** ETA accuracy improves with network density, and project44 has more connected carriers feeding position data than any competitor in this category. That is a compounding advantage a smaller vendor cannot simply buy its way out of with better modeling.

**A single API for a multimodal stack.** For a shipper or 3PL managing ocean, rail, and road freight through one integration rather than three separate visibility contracts, project44's breadth is the whole pitch.

## Where FourKites pulls ahead {#fourkites-wins}

**Dock and yard depth.** This is the real differentiator. Knowing a truck is 40 minutes out is useful. Knowing it has been sitting in your own yard for three hours is what actually changes the detention conversation with a carrier, and FourKites instruments the facility side more thoroughly than project44 does.

**Retail and CPG operating history.** FourKites grew up inside retail and CPG supply chains, and the appointment scheduling and facility-level workflows reflect a decade of real distribution-center patterns rather than a generic tracking feed retrofitted with a yard module.

**A tighter buyer fit.** For a shipper whose freight is heavily over-the-road and whose pain shows up at the dock, FourKites is doing the specific job it was built for. The narrower focus is a feature here, not a limitation.

## Where the two are at parity {#identical}

Stop comparing on these. Both platforms cover them competently and neither should decide the purchase on its own.

- **In-transit tracking basics.** Real-time position, predicted arrival time, and exception alerts on delayed shipments are table stakes on both platforms.
- **API access.** Both offer API-first integration for pulling visibility data into a shipper's own systems rather than requiring staff to live in the vendor's dashboard.
- **SOC 2 and GDPR.** Both list SOC 2 and GDPR compliance; neither publicly lists HIPAA, which rules both out for pharma cold-chain shippers with strict regulatory documentation needs without a direct compliance conversation.
- **No booking function.** Neither books, tenders, or settles a load. Both require a TMS underneath to be useful at all, and that requirement is identical on either side.
- **Custom-quote sales motion.** Neither vendor publishes pricing, and both require a sales conversation before a buyer sees a real number.

## Integration depth and what sits around each platform {#integrations}

Both platforms are built to sit on top of an existing TMS rather than replace one, so the real integration question is how cleanly each connects to what a shipper already runs.

project44's API is the product for enterprise integrators. Shippers and 3PLs building custom logistics dashboards or feeding ETA data into a customer-facing tracking page lean on the API directly, and the multimodal breadth means one integration covers truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, and ocean rather than stitching together separate feeds per mode.

FourKites integrates deeply with warehouse and yard management workflows, which is a natural extension of its dock-and-yard strength. For a shipper whose stack already includes a dedicated yard management system, FourKites' facility-level data tends to slot in with less custom work than a pure in-transit feed would.

Neither platform replaces the TMS integration work. Whichever vendor you pick, budget a real integration project against your TMS, your ERP, and your customer-facing tracking pages, not a weekend of API keys.

## Security, compliance, and the gap that matters {#security}

| Control | project44 | FourKites |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Listed | Listed |
| GDPR | Listed | Listed |
| HIPAA | Not listed | Not listed |
| SSO | Available | Available |
| Audit logs | Available | Available |

The compliance posture is a wash between the two, at least on what each vendor discloses publicly. Neither lists HIPAA, which matters if you move pharma or medical freight under strict chain-of-custody documentation requirements, and that gap should trigger a direct compliance conversation rather than an assumption either way.

For most freight shippers, security is not the deciding factor in this comparison. Modal coverage and carrier network fit for your specific lanes are doing the real work in the decision.

## Switching cost and what lock-in actually looks like {#switching}

Neither platform is a system of record the way a TMS is, which is the good news for switching cost. Your shipment history, customer relationships, and operational workflow live in your TMS, not in the visibility layer sitting on top of it.

The real lock-in is carrier connectivity, not data. Once your carrier base is onboarded and sharing ELD data with one vendor, that relationship does not automatically transfer to a competitor. Re-onboarding the same carriers to a new visibility platform means repeating the months-long chase that got them connected the first time, carrier by carrier.

A shipper considering a switch should treat carrier re-onboarding as the real project cost, not the software migration itself. Run a pilot on a subset of lanes before committing to a full cutover, and confirm the new vendor's connection rate against your actual carrier list before signing anything.

## Support reality and implementation timeline {#support}

Both vendors run an enterprise sales and onboarding motion, with implementation depending heavily on carrier connection rates you do not fully control rather than a fixed vendor timeline. Time to value on either platform is realistically measured in months, not weeks, because the bottleneck is chasing individual carriers onto data sharing, not configuring the dashboard.

Neither company publishes response-time SLAs by tier the way a self-serve SaaS product does. Enterprise buyers should negotiate support response commitments explicitly in the contract, particularly around exception handling during peak shipping seasons when a late-freight alert failing to fire is the moment the platform's value gets tested.

## Vendor viability {#vendor-viability}

project44 has the larger public review footprint by a wide margin and a customer base spanning mid-market 3PLs through Fortune 100 shippers, which suggests broad market penetration across segments rather than dependence on a single vertical. The G2 rating has held at 4.7/5 across a review base more than double FourKites', a signal of consistent satisfaction rather than a small enthusiastic early base.

FourKites has a narrower but deeply entrenched position inside retail and CPG supply chains specifically, the kind of vertical concentration that makes a vendor sticky within its core buyer base even if it limits addressable market breadth compared to project44's multimodal ambitions. A shipper choosing FourKites is betting on continued investment in the retail and CPG relationship rather than broad platform expansion.

## Best-for matrix by shipper profile {#who-wins}

| Shipper profile | Pick |
|---|---|
| Multimodal shipper or 3PL (truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, ocean) | project44 |
| Retail, CPG, or manufacturing shipper with dock and detention costs | FourKites |
| Below roughly 20,000 annual shipments | Neither; native TMS tracking is usually enough |
| No existing TMS | Neither, until a TMS is in place underneath |
| Regulated pharma or cold-chain freight needing HIPAA documentation | Neither publicly lists it; get a direct compliance answer first |
| Shipper prioritizing the largest carrier network and review base | project44 |

## Who neither platform is for {#not-for}

Skip both if you move under roughly 20,000 shipments a year. Native tracking inside your TMS is usually enough at that volume, and a dedicated visibility subscription on top of it is hard to justify against the cost.

Skip both if you do not already have a TMS. Neither books, tenders, or settles freight, so a shipper starting from spreadsheets and email needs a platform like Shipwell or Descartes Aljex first, with visibility layered on afterward once the booking workflow is solid.

Skip both if your freight is pharma or cold-chain with strict HIPAA documentation requirements. Neither vendor publicly lists HIPAA compliance, and that gap needs a direct answer from the vendor's compliance team before it belongs in a shortlist.

## Our call between project44 and FourKites {#verdict}

The decision is not really project44 versus FourKites as competing generalists. It is a question of where your freight actually hurts.

If your shipment mix spans modes, ocean and rail alongside truckload and LTL, and your carrier base is broad and constantly changing, project44's network breadth and larger community evidence base make it the safer default. 691 G2 reviews at 4.7/5 is not a marketing number, it is what happens when a platform has been stress-tested across thousands of buyer relationships.

If you are a retail, CPG, or manufacturing shipper and detention at your own dock is the line item eating your freight budget, FourKites is built specifically for that problem in a way project44 treats as secondary. The appointment scheduling and yard visibility reflect real distribution-center experience, not a bolted-on module.

Either way, get two competing quotes running at the same time before signing, and ask both vendors for their carrier connection rate against your actual lane mix, not their aggregate network size. That single number predicts more about your outcome than anything in a demo.

For the wider freight management category, see our [best freight management software](/list/best-freight-management-software/) comparison, where both [project44](/list/best-freight-management-software/#tool-02) and [FourKites](/list/best-freight-management-software/#tool-08) are profiled alongside Descartes Aljex, Shipwell, Rose Rocket, and the rest of the field. Neither project44 nor FourKites yet has a dedicated Topickz software profile; if that changes, this page will link to it.

## FAQs

### Is project44 or FourKites cheaper?

Nobody outside a signed contract knows for certain, because neither vendor publishes pricing. Third-party pricing research places both in the same rough band, about $100 to $250 per user per month for core over-the-road visibility, climbing toward $500 per user per month for multimodal coverage on project44. FourKites' quotes tend to concentrate in the lower part of that range because its footprint is more concentrated in over-the-road and dock and yard tracking rather than parcel and ocean. The honest answer is to run two competing quotes at once. Freight visibility pricing moves when a rival number is on the table, the same as it does across the rest of freight software.

### Which platform has the bigger carrier network?

project44, and the G2 review base backs it up: 691 reviews at 4.7/5 versus 270 at 4.5/5 for FourKites, more than double the independent evidence. project44 covers truckload, LTL, parcel, rail, and ocean in one API, and reviewers specifically call out the LTL coverage as deeper than competing visibility platforms. Network effects compound here. The value of a visibility platform is a function of how many carriers are actually connected and sending position data, so the larger network keeps getting more useful while a smaller one has to work harder to close the gap on every new lane.

### Does either platform actually book freight?

No. This is the single most misunderstood thing about both platforms. project44 and FourKites are visibility layers that sit on top of a transportation management system, not TMS replacements. Neither will quote, tender, or settle a load. A shipper or broker without an existing TMS is buying half a system with either vendor and will still need something like Shipwell, Descartes Aljex, or an enterprise platform underneath to actually move freight. Evaluate both as an addition to your stack, not a foundation for it.

### Which one is better for a retail or CPG shipper?

FourKites has the stronger case, and it comes down to where the freight actually sits idle. FourKites grew up inside retail and CPG distribution-center relationships, and its dock and yard visibility is built around a decade of real facility-level operating patterns: appointment scheduling, yard management, and knowing a trailer has been sitting at your own dock for three hours rather than just knowing a truck is 40 minutes out. Detention and demurrage costs are driven by what happens at the facility, not on the highway, which is the specific problem FourKites instruments more thoroughly than project44 does.

### How long does carrier onboarding take with either vendor?

Longer than the sales pitch suggests, on both platforms. The visibility is only as good as the percentage of your actual carriers that are connected and sharing position data, and getting smaller regional carriers onto ELD data sharing is a chase measured in months, not a vendor checkbox. During evaluation, ask each vendor for the carrier connection rate against your specific lane mix and carrier list, not their aggregate network size. A network with hundreds of thousands of connected carriers is close to worthless if your 40 regional partners are not among them.

### Do project44 and FourKites handle SOC 2 and GDPR the same way?

Both list SOC 2 and GDPR compliance, and neither publicly lists HIPAA. For most freight visibility buyers this parity means security posture is not the deciding factor between the two; the decision comes down to modal coverage and carrier network fit instead. If your evaluation involves regulated cargo or a buyer with specific compliance documentation requirements, request the current SOC 2 report and data processing agreement directly from each vendor rather than relying on a marketing page, since neither publishes the underlying audit scope publicly.