Softwr

Manufacturing · head to head

eMaint vs Maintenance Connection

eMaint logo

eMaint

Manufacturing

Configurable CMMS from Fluke Reliability for asset-heavy operations

From
$69/user/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Maintenance Connection logo

Maintenance Connection

Manufacturing

Enterprise CMMS from Accruent for multi-site asset management

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: eMaint the interface is dated against MaintainX and Limble, and this is the most common objection from technicians during a trial; Maintenance Connection implementation is a project measured in months, and the cost of that work frequently exceeds the first year of licensing
  • They diverge on capability: eMaint covers Configurable without code, Maintenance Connection covers Deep asset hierarchies.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which eMaint and Maintenance Connection actually diverge.

Attributes where eMaint and Maintenance Connection differ
AttributeeMaintMaintenance Connection
Starting price$69/user/monthOn request
Pricing modelPer user per month, three-user minimumquote

Identical on both: free tier (No), platforms (Web, iOS, Android), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Manufacturing).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in eMaint

  • Configurable without code
  • Preventive and condition-based
  • Fluke sensor integration
  • Parts and purchasing
  • Multi-site

Only in Maintenance Connection

  • Deep asset hierarchies
  • Labour and cost tracking
  • Multi-storeroom inventory
  • Preventive and predictive
  • Enterprise integration

Both cover

  • Compliance reporting

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

eMaint

  • Asset-heavy manufacturing with an established maintenance process to reproducenot Maintenance Connection
  • Teams moving from calendar-based to condition-based maintenancenot Maintenance Connection
  • Regulated environments needing audit-ready maintenance recordsnot Maintenance Connection
  • Organisations already invested in Fluke test and monitoring equipmentnot Maintenance Connection

Maintenance Connection

  • Multi-site manufacturing or healthcare estates with large asset registersnot eMaint
  • Organisations that must evidence a maintenance regime to a regulatornot eMaint
  • Operations replacing an ageing enterprise CMMS rather than papernot eMaint
  • Estates needing maintenance integrated with ERP and financenot eMaint

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

eMaint

  • The interface is dated against MaintainX and Limble, and this is the most common objection from technicians during a trial
  • Configurability means implementation is a project rather than a signup, and teams that under-resource it end up with a half-configured system
  • The three-user minimum makes it poor value for very small teams
  • Mobile is functional but clearly secondary to the web application
  • Pricing above the Team tier is quote-based, so comparison against published competitors requires a sales conversation

Maintenance Connection

  • Implementation is a project measured in months, and the cost of that work frequently exceeds the first year of licensing
  • Pricing is entirely quote-based with no published entry point, so early comparison is impossible
  • The interface reflects its age and is a common objection from technicians used to consumer-grade mobile apps
  • Overpowered for single-site operations, where the configuration burden buys capability that will not be used
  • Accruent sells a broad portfolio, so the buying process involves more product than a maintenance team asked for

Pricing, plan by plan

eMaint

$69/user/month
  • Team$69/user/month
    • Three-user minimum
    • Work orders
    • Preventive maintenance
  • Professional$undefined/user/month
    • Parts and purchasing
    • Custom forms
    • Advanced reporting
  • Enterprise$undefined/user/month
    • Condition monitoring
    • API and integrations
    • SSO

Maintenance Connection

On request
  • Maintenance Connection$undefined/year
    • Work and asset management
    • Multi-site
    • Inventory

Which should you pick?

Choose eMaint if

  • You need configurable without code.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want preventive and condition-based.
eMaint review

Choose Maintenance Connection if

  • You need deep asset hierarchies.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want labour and cost tracking.
Maintenance Connection review

Questions people ask

Is eMaint or Maintenance Connection better?
Neither clearly leads. eMaint starts at $69/user/month and Maintenance Connection at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, eMaint or Maintenance Connection?
eMaint starts at $69/user/month and Maintenance Connection at On request.
Does eMaint or Maintenance Connection run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is eMaint best used for?
eMaint is most often used for asset-heavy manufacturing with an established maintenance process to reproduce, teams moving from calendar-based to condition-based maintenance, regulated environments needing audit-ready maintenance records, organisations already invested in fluke test and monitoring equipment. Of those, asset-heavy manufacturing with an established maintenance process to reproduce and teams moving from calendar-based to condition-based maintenance are not what Maintenance Connection is typically brought in for.
What can eMaint do that Maintenance Connection cannot?
eMaint covers Configurable without code, Preventive and condition-based, Fluke sensor integration, Parts and purchasing. Maintenance Connection covers Deep asset hierarchies, Labour and cost tracking, Multi-storeroom inventory, Preventive and predictive. Both handle Compliance reporting.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

eMaint: Who owns eMaint?

Fluke Reliability, part of Fortive. That is why condition monitoring data from Fluke instruments integrates directly.

Maintenance Connection: Who is Maintenance Connection for?

Multi-site organisations with large asset registers and formal maintenance governance. Below that scale, the configuration effort is not repaid.

eMaint: What does it actually cost?

The Team plan is 69 USD per user per month with a three-user minimum, so roughly 2,484 USD a year at the floor. Professional and Enterprise are quoted.

Maintenance Connection: What does it cost?

Not published. It is quoted, and implementation is a separate line that often exceeds first-year licensing.

eMaint: Is it better than MaintainX or Limble?

Different trade. eMaint is more configurable and better on condition-based maintenance; the others are markedly better on mobile experience and speed of setup. Asset complexity should decide it.

Maintenance Connection: How does it differ from MaintainX?

Almost entirely. This is an enterprise system configured to enforce an existing process; MaintainX is a mobile app a team adopts in a day. They rarely appear on the same shortlist honestly.

eMaint: How long does implementation take?

Weeks rather than days for anything beyond a basic work order setup. The configurability that makes it flexible is also what makes setup a project.

Maintenance Connection: Is it good for regulated industries?

That is its strongest case. Audit trails, evidence of preventive regimes and multi-site consistency are what it is built to produce.

eMaint: Does it suit small teams?

Poorly. The three-user minimum and the configuration effort both assume an organisation large enough to have a maintenance function rather than a maintenance person.

Maintenance Connection: What is the biggest risk in adopting it?

Under-resourcing implementation. A partially configured enterprise CMMS is worse than a well-run simple one, and this is the most common way these projects disappoint.

Share

Related pages

More on eMaint

More on Maintenance Connection

Keep looking

Other head to heads