Softwr

Construction · head to head

Reconstruct vs Sitemark

Reconstruct logo

Reconstruct

Construction

Reality capture and progress tracking that aligns site imagery to the model and the schedule

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Sitemark logo

Sitemark

Construction

Drone-based progress tracking, quality control and commissioning built specifically for solar farms

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Reconstruct pricing is quoted with nothing published, so a buyer cannot sanity-check a proposal against a list rate and has no way to know whether the price scales with projects, square footage or users until deep in the sales process.; Sitemark it only does solar, so a mixed renewables portfolio still needs a second platform for wind, storage and substations, and the consolidation argument for buying it collapses.
  • They diverge on capability: Reconstruct covers Device-agnostic capture, Sitemark covers Construction progress tracking.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Reconstruct and Sitemark actually diverge.

Attributes where Reconstruct and Sitemark differ
AttributeReconstructSitemark

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), platforms (Web, iOS, Android), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Construction).

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 Reconstruct

  • Device-agnostic capture
  • Photogrammetry and mesh generation
  • 4D schedule alignment
  • Design overlay
  • Time slider
  • Measurement tools
  • Issue tracking
  • Remote walkthrough

Only in Sitemark

  • Construction progress tracking
  • As-built versus design comparison
  • Thermographic inspection
  • Defect localisation
  • Commissioning workflows
  • Ticketing and work management
  • Portfolio dashboards
  • Drone and robotics ingestion

What people use each for

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

Reconstruct

  • A general contractor whose monthly progress claim is regularly challenged by the owner, needing dated visual evidence tied to schedule activities rather than a folder of photosnot Sitemark
  • An owner running projects in several countries who wants to cut executive site visits without accepting the contractor’s self-reported percentage completenot Sitemark
  • A healthcare or data centre fit-out where above-ceiling services must be recorded before they are closed up, so later maintenance does not require demolitionnot Sitemark
  • A delay or defect dispute where the decisive question is what was physically in place on a specific date and the only other evidence is contested emailnot Sitemark

Sitemark

  • An EPC contractor on a multi-hundred-megawatt ground-mount plant that must report weekly installed counts to a lender and cannot do it by walking the rowsnot Reconstruct
  • An asset owner accepting a plant at provisional acceptance who needs documented evidence that what was built matches the issued design before signingnot Reconstruct
  • An operations team running annual thermographic inspection across a portfolio, wanting defects mapped to module positions so a technician goes straight to the faultnot Reconstruct
  • A developer comparing defect and underperformance rates across contractors and module suppliers to inform the next procurement roundnot Reconstruct

Where each one falls short

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

Reconstruct

  • Pricing is quoted with nothing published, so a buyer cannot sanity-check a proposal against a list rate and has no way to know whether the price scales with projects, square footage or users until deep in the sales process.
  • The whole value depends on disciplined recurring capture, and site teams treat walking the building with a camera as a low-priority chore, so datasets go stale exactly when a dispute makes them valuable.
  • Photogrammetry from handheld footage is less accurate than laser scanning, so it is fine for progress and coordination but should not be relied on for tight as-built tolerances or prefabrication dimensions.
  • Schedule alignment requires a well-structured schedule with activities that map to physical locations; on projects where the programme is a coarse rolled-up bar chart the progress calculation is close to meaningless.
  • It is another platform alongside Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud rather than a replacement, so buyers add a subscription and a workflow rather than consolidating one, and the business case has to survive that.

Sitemark

  • It only does solar, so a mixed renewables portfolio still needs a second platform for wind, storage and substations, and the consolidation argument for buying it collapses.
  • Pricing is quoted on site count and unpublished variables, which penalises owners of many small distributed assets relative to one operator of a single large plant with the same total capacity.
  • You still need someone to fly the site, and Sitemark does not remove the drone operator cost, permits or airspace constraints; it monetises the data after the flight.
  • Automated progress counting depends on a clean, current design layout, and on projects where the layout changes weekly the comparison generates false deviations that erode trust in the numbers.
  • Thermographic defect detection needs the plant producing at sufficient irradiance, so inspection windows in northern latitudes are narrow and a missed window pushes findings into the next season.

Pricing, plan by plan

Reconstruct

On request
  • Reconstruct$undefined/year
    • Quoted per project or per portfolio
    • Unlimited capture devices
    • 4D schedule alignment

Sitemark

On request
  • Sitemark Construction$undefined/year
    • Priced on number of sites and other variables
    • Progress tracking across construction activities
    • As-built versus design quality control
  • Sitemark Operations$undefined/year
    • Thermographic inspection and defect detection
    • Ticketing and work management
    • Portfolio dashboards

Which should you pick?

Choose Reconstruct if

  • You need device-agnostic capture.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want photogrammetry and mesh generation.
Reconstruct review

Choose Sitemark if

  • You need construction progress tracking.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want as-built versus design comparison.
Sitemark review

Questions people ask

Is Reconstruct or Sitemark better?
Neither clearly leads. Reconstruct starts at On request and Sitemark at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Reconstruct or Sitemark?
Reconstruct starts at On request and Sitemark at On request.
Does Reconstruct or Sitemark run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Reconstruct best used for?
Reconstruct is most often used for a general contractor whose monthly progress claim is regularly challenged by the owner, needing dated visual evidence tied to schedule activities rather than a folder of photos, an owner running projects in several countries who wants to cut executive site visits without accepting the contractor’s self-reported percentage complete, a healthcare or data centre fit-out where above-ceiling services must be recorded before they are closed up, so later maintenance does not require demolition, a delay or defect dispute where the decisive question is what was physically in place on a specific date and the only other evidence is contested email. Of those, a general contractor whose monthly progress claim is regularly challenged by the owner, needing dated visual evidence tied to schedule activities rather than a folder of photos and an owner running projects in several countries who wants to cut executive site visits without accepting the contractor’s self-reported percentage complete are not what Sitemark is typically brought in for.
What can Reconstruct do that Sitemark cannot?
Reconstruct covers Device-agnostic capture, Photogrammetry and mesh generation, 4D schedule alignment, Design overlay. Sitemark covers Construction progress tracking, As-built versus design comparison, Thermographic inspection, Defect localisation.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Reconstruct: How much does Reconstruct cost?

Not published. It is quoted per project or portfolio. Ask specifically whether the price scales by project count, square footage or capture volume, because those give very different totals.

Sitemark: Is Sitemark priced per megawatt?

No. Sitemark states pricing is based on number of sites and other variables. Ask explicitly how a portfolio of small sites is treated, because per-site pricing is unkind to distributed assets.

Reconstruct: Do we need a drone or a laser scanner?

No. It works from 360 cameras and even smartphone video. Drones and scanners improve exterior and accuracy-critical coverage.

Sitemark: Do we have to use Sitemark drone pilots?

No. It accepts data from third-party drone operators, which lets you keep an existing flight contractor.

Reconstruct: How accurate is it?

Accurate enough for progress, coordination and dispute evidence. It is not a substitute for survey-grade laser scanning where tolerances matter.

Sitemark: Does it cover anything other than solar?

No. It is built specifically around solar plant structures and defect types.

Reconstruct: Who owns the captured data at closeout?

The customer. Confirm the export format and retention terms in the contract before handover, because a reality archive is only useful if you can still open it in five years.

Sitemark: Can we export our data?

Yes, orthomosaics, defect lists and reports export. Confirm the format and whether historical inspections remain accessible after a subscription lapses.

Reconstruct: Does it replace Procore?

No. It integrates with Procore and Autodesk Construction Cloud and adds the visual as-built layer.

Sitemark: Where is the company based?

Leuven, Belgium, with customers across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas.

Share

Related pages

More on Reconstruct

More on Sitemark

Keep looking

Other head to heads