Softwr

Manufacturing · head to head

eMaint vs Petasense

eMaint logo

eMaint

Manufacturing

Configurable CMMS from Fluke Reliability for asset-heavy operations

From
$69/user/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Petasense logo

Petasense

Manufacturing

Wireless vibration and asset reliability monitoring, now owned by AssetWatch

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; Petasense petasense is now owned by AssetWatch, whose business is monitoring delivered as a managed service, so a buyer wanting self-service software should get the delivery model written into the contract rather than assume it.
  • They diverge on capability: eMaint covers Configurable without code, Petasense covers Vibration Mote.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which eMaint and Petasense actually diverge.

Attributes where eMaint and Petasense differ
AttributeeMaintPetasense
Starting price$69/user/monthOn request
Pricing modelPer user per month, three-user minimumquote
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb, Cloud, iOS, Android

Identical on both: free tier (No), 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
  • Compliance reporting
  • Multi-site

Only in Petasense

  • Vibration Mote
  • Transmitter range
  • ARO cloud
  • VFD-specific monitoring
  • Reliability workflow
  • Mixed wired and wireless

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 Petasense
  • Teams moving from calendar-based to condition-based maintenancenot Petasense
  • Regulated environments needing audit-ready maintenance recordsnot Petasense
  • Organisations already invested in Fluke test and monitoring equipmentnot Petasense

Petasense

  • A reliability team wanting continuous vibration data on assets currently covered by a quarterly walkaround routenot eMaint
  • A plant with variable frequency drive assets where generic vibration analytics produce too many false alarmsnot eMaint
  • Mixing battery sensors on accessible pumps with wired sensors on the handful of assets that would stop productionnot eMaint
  • A manufacturer with no in-house vibration analyst that wants the analysis delivered as a service rather than as a dashboardnot 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

Petasense

  • Petasense is now owned by AssetWatch, whose business is monitoring delivered as a managed service, so a buyer wanting self-service software should get the delivery model written into the contract rather than assume it.
  • Hardware is required per measurement point and gateways are required per area, so the up-front capital for a plant-wide deployment is substantial and separate from the subscription.
  • Per-asset subscription pricing scales linearly, which makes full coverage of a large population of low-value motors uneconomic compared with route-based monitoring.
  • Nothing is published on sensor cost, subscription rate, gateway requirements or contract length, so a total cost of ownership figure requires a full sales engagement before you can compare it against anything.
  • Battery-powered wireless sensors trade measurement richness for battery life, so the sampling rate and resolution are lower than a wired analyser would give, which limits diagnosis of high-frequency bearing defects on critical machines.

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

Petasense

On request
  • Petasense ARO$undefined/year
    • Subscription priced per monitored asset
    • Vibration Mote or Transmitter hardware required per measurement point
    • Gateway hardware required for wireless deployments

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 Petasense if

  • You need vibration mote.
  • You work on Web, Cloud, iOS, Android.
  • You also want transmitter range.
Petasense review

Questions people ask

Is eMaint or Petasense better?
Neither clearly leads. eMaint starts at $69/user/month and Petasense at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, eMaint or Petasense?
eMaint starts at $69/user/month and Petasense at On request.
Does eMaint or Petasense run on more platforms?
eMaint runs on Web, iOS, Android. Petasense runs on Web, Cloud, iOS, Android.
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 Petasense is typically brought in for.
What can eMaint do that Petasense cannot?
eMaint covers Configurable without code, Preventive and condition-based, Fluke sensor integration, Parts and purchasing. Petasense covers Vibration Mote, Transmitter range, ARO cloud, VFD-specific monitoring.

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.

Petasense: Is Petasense still a separate product?

Yes. It trades under its own name with its own product line, but the owner since January 2024 is AssetWatch.

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.

Petasense: Do I have to buy Petasense hardware?

Yes. The platform is built around its own Motes and Transmitters; it is not a bring-your-own-sensor analytics product.

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.

Petasense: Can I get monitoring as a service?

Yes, through parent AssetWatch, whose model is condition monitoring engineers reviewing your data. Clarify which model your quote covers.

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.

Petasense: How is it priced?

Per monitored asset on subscription, plus sensors and gateways. Nothing is published.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on eMaint

More on Petasense

Keep looking

Other head to heads