Softwr

Construction · head to head

RIB CostX vs Sitemark

RIB CostX logo

RIB CostX

Construction

2D and BIM quantity takeoff with live-linked estimating workbooks for quantity surveyors and estimators

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: RIB CostX pricing is not published anywhere and is quoted per package and per seat through regional resellers, so two firms of similar size routinely pay materially different rates for the same configuration.; 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: RIB CostX covers 2D drawing takeoff, Sitemark covers Construction progress tracking.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which RIB CostX and Sitemark actually diverge.

Attributes where RIB CostX and Sitemark differ
AttributeRIB CostXSitemark
PlatformsWindowsWeb, iOS, Android

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), 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 RIB CostX

  • 2D drawing takeoff
  • BIM and 3D takeoff
  • Live-linked workbooks
  • Drawing revision comparison
  • Bill of quantities production
  • Rate libraries
  • Subcontractor comparison
  • CostX Viewer

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.

RIB CostX

  • A quantity surveying practice that must issue a formatted bill of quantities under NRM or SMM7 and cannot do so from a generic takeoff toolnot Sitemark
  • A contractor tendering a job where the client reissues drawings mid-tender, needing revision comparison so only changed areas are remeasurednot Sitemark
  • An estimating department moving from paper and Excel to model-based measurement while keeping the same rate library and bill structurenot Sitemark
  • A cost consultant producing early-stage elemental cost plans from partial models, then refining the same workbook as design detail arrivesnot 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 RIB CostX
  • An asset owner accepting a plant at provisional acceptance who needs documented evidence that what was built matches the issued design before signingnot RIB CostX
  • An operations team running annual thermographic inspection across a portfolio, wanting defects mapped to module positions so a technician goes straight to the faultnot RIB CostX
  • A developer comparing defect and underperformance rates across contractors and module suppliers to inform the next procurement roundnot RIB CostX

Where each one falls short

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

RIB CostX

  • Pricing is not published anywhere and is quoted per package and per seat through regional resellers, so two firms of similar size routinely pay materially different rates for the same configuration.
  • It is Windows desktop software with heavy graphics demands; there is no meaningful macOS or browser option, which rules it out for practices standardised on Apple hardware.
  • The learning curve is steep enough that firms typically budget formal training, and an estimator productive in a rival tool takes weeks rather than days to reach the same output here.
  • RIB is owned by Schneider Electric, whose strategic interest is the wider RIB construction cloud, so a buyer choosing CostX today is betting on continued investment in a desktop estimating product inside a group focused elsewhere.
  • BIM takeoff is only as good as the model, and on projects where the model is modelled for coordination rather than measurement the automatic quantities need enough manual checking that the time saving largely disappears.

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

RIB CostX

On request
  • CostX Quantify$undefined/year
    • 2D and BIM takeoff
    • Measurement export
    • No integrated estimating workbook
  • CostX Core$undefined/year
    • Takeoff plus live-linked workbooks
    • Rate libraries
    • Standard reporting
  • CostX Complete$undefined/year
    • Full BIM takeoff
    • Advanced workbooks and bills of quantities
    • Subcontractor comparison

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 RIB CostX if

  • You need 2d drawing takeoff.
  • You work on Windows.
  • You also want bim and 3d takeoff.
RIB CostX 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 RIB CostX or Sitemark better?
Neither clearly leads. RIB CostX 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, RIB CostX or Sitemark?
RIB CostX starts at On request and Sitemark at On request.
Does RIB CostX or Sitemark run on more platforms?
RIB CostX runs on Windows. Sitemark runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is RIB CostX best used for?
RIB CostX is most often used for a quantity surveying practice that must issue a formatted bill of quantities under nrm or smm7 and cannot do so from a generic takeoff tool, a contractor tendering a job where the client reissues drawings mid-tender, needing revision comparison so only changed areas are remeasured, an estimating department moving from paper and excel to model-based measurement while keeping the same rate library and bill structure, a cost consultant producing early-stage elemental cost plans from partial models, then refining the same workbook as design detail arrives. Of those, a quantity surveying practice that must issue a formatted bill of quantities under nrm or smm7 and cannot do so from a generic takeoff tool and a contractor tendering a job where the client reissues drawings mid-tender, needing revision comparison so only changed areas are remeasured are not what Sitemark is typically brought in for.
What can RIB CostX do that Sitemark cannot?
RIB CostX covers 2D drawing takeoff, BIM and 3D takeoff, Live-linked workbooks, Drawing revision comparison. Sitemark covers Construction progress tracking, As-built versus design comparison, Thermographic inspection, Defect localisation.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

RIB CostX: How much does RIB CostX cost?

RIB does not publish prices. It is quoted per package (Quantify, Core or Complete) and per seat, usually through a regional reseller.

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.

RIB CostX: Is a perpetual licence available?

RIB has historically offered both perpetual and subscription licensing, with subscription now the default push. Ask explicitly, because the perpetual option is not advertised.

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.

RIB CostX: Does it do BIM takeoff or just 2D?

Both. Complete handles IFC and Revit models; Quantify and Core differ in workbook capability rather than measurement.

Sitemark: Does it cover anything other than solar?

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

RIB CostX: Who is it for?

Quantity surveyors and estimators in markets that use bills of quantities: UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the Middle East and South Africa above all.

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.

RIB CostX: Can we open estimates without a licence?

A free CostX Viewer lets others open and inspect measured drawings and workbooks without a full seat.

Sitemark: Where is the company based?

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

Share

Related pages

More on RIB CostX

More on Sitemark

Keep looking

Other head to heads