Home / Compare / Doxel vs Track3D
Doxel vs Track3D
Two AI-first progress tracking platforms that quantify installed work from site capture and both point to square footage in their pricing: Doxel (360 capture walks measured against BIM) and Track3D (reality capture unified and quantified without a BIM model to start). Vendor-published facts only, as recorded on each tool page; desk research, not tested, no winner.
In short: Doxel (Progress tracking; no public prices (quote / sales)) vs Track3D (Progress tracking; vendor publishes prices). Facts last checked Oct 16, 2026. No winner declared; not tested.
DESK RESEARCH, NOT TESTED. Compiled from vendors' public websites (accessed Oct 16, 2026). Vendor claims are not verified by Means & Methods Lab. No scores or rankings.
Side by side
| Sheet row | Doxel | Track3D |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Progress tracking | Progress tracking |
| AI role (our label) | AI-first | AI-first |
| What it does | Automated construction progress tracking: send BIM, walk the site with a 360 camera mounted to a hard hat, and Doxel's computer vision measures work-in-place by trade, system, and stage against the plan. Product features listed include a rules-of-credit engine for % complete, progress by zone/trade/system, schedule mapping with language models, drone imagery for early phases, earned-value / pay-app support, and portfolio views. Vendor claims 11% faster project delivery, 16% reduction in monthly costs, and 95% less time tracking progress, with setup in less than 2 weeks (vendor claims, not verified). | AI reality intelligence platform that unifies reality capture data and quantifies installed work across job activities from each capture. Vendor says visuals are available in 30 minutes and progress data in 6 hours (conditions apply), with no BIM model required to start, and production analytics tied to cost codes. Customers quoted include Hensel Phelps and Performance Contracting Group. |
| Who it's for | Executives, superintendents, and project teams on active jobs. | Owners, general contractors, and trade partners. |
| Pricing (as publicly stated) | Not publicly listed. Pricing FAQ (re-checked Oct 16, 2026) still says cost depends on the capabilities you need and the amount of construction you do or the size of the jobsite, and that Doxel generally charges by the square foot. The page also says users are unlimited (not charged by the seat) and that Doxel can be used on a single jobsite. Quotes on request; no prices shown. Earlier note (Oct 15, 2026): Not publicly listed. Pricing FAQ says cost depends on the capabilities needed and the amount of construction (or jobsite size), and that Doxel generally charges by the square foot; quotes on request. | Pricing page (checked Oct 16, 2026), headline: "Pricing Rebuilt Around Progress, Not Pictures. At $0.15/sqft", with "Talk to Sales". The vendor says every sq ft registered for Progress Intelligence unlocks 5X that in visual documentation coverage at no added cost, and lists unlimited users. Minimums, term and what counts as a registered sq ft are not stated. Vendor-listed; confirm current pricing with the vendor. |
| Test status | Not tested. No scores. | Not tested. No scores. |
| Vendor links | ||
| Sources |
Facts last checked: Oct 16, 2026. Prices change; check the vendor page before relying on them.
Where the vendor descriptions differ
- Starting point: Doxel's workflow begins with the team sending BIM, then measures work-in-place by trade, system and stage against the plan. Track3D says no BIM model is required to start.
- Capture: Doxel describes a crew member walking the site with a 360 camera mounted to a hard hat, plus drone imagery for early phases. Track3D describes unifying reality capture data from each capture; we did not record a specific capture device for it.
- Outputs: Doxel lists a rules-of-credit engine for percent complete, progress by zone, trade and system, schedule mapping with language models, earned-value and pay-app support, and portfolio views. Track3D emphasizes quantities of installed work across job activities and production analytics tied to cost codes.
- Timing (different measures, not like-for-like): Doxel says setup takes less than 2 weeks. Track3D states visuals in 30 minutes and progress data in 6 hours after a capture (conditions apply).
- Vendor-stated figures: Doxel claims 11% faster project delivery, a 16% reduction in monthly costs and 95% less time tracking progress (vendor claims, not verified by Means & Methods Lab). We recorded no outcome percentages for Track3D.
- Pricing (not like-for-like): Track3D's pricing page headline is $0.15 per square foot with Talk to Sales, says each registered square foot unlocks 5X that in visual documentation coverage at no added cost, and lists unlimited users; minimums, term and what counts as a registered square foot are not stated (checked Oct 16, 2026). Doxel publishes no prices; its pricing FAQ says cost depends on the capabilities needed and the amount of construction (or jobsite size) and that it generally charges by the square foot, quoted on request (checked Oct 15, 2026). A per-square-foot rate alone does not show what each includes.
- Audience: Doxel lists executives, superintendents and project teams on active jobs. Track3D lists owners, general contractors and trade partners.
Paraphrased from the sources listed above. Vendor claims are reported as claims.
What we can't tell you yet
Which tool is better for your work. That needs testing on the same package with a verified answer key. Planned measures for this comparison:
- Percent-complete agreement with a manual walk of the same floor on the same day
- Capture time per walk and how often capture must happen to keep progress current
- What a registered or billed square foot covers for each vendor (floors, phases, repeat captures)
- Field and progress tools are outside Means & Methods Lab's benchmark scope; no test is planned.
See the methodology and leaderboard status.
Related
- Category hub: AI project management, field, progress & safety tools
- Compare: OpenSpace vs Buildots
- Compare: Doxel vs Buildots
- Compare: viAct vs Intenseye
- Compare: Raken vs CompanyCam
- Compare: Fieldwire vs PlanRadar
- Compare: Voxel vs Intenseye
- Compare: Track3D vs Buildots
- Compare: Cintoo vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: viAct vs Voxel
- Compare: WakeCap vs viAct
- Compare: OpenSpace vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: Reconstruct vs OpenSpace
- Compare: Procore AI vs Autodesk Assistant
- Compare: Riskcast vs Raken
- Compare: Skydio vs DroneDeploy
- Compare: Matterport vs Cintoo
- Compare: Reconstruct vs Track3D
- Compare: PlanRadar vs Visibuild
- Compare: Dalux Field vs Fieldwire
- Compare: RDrive vs Visibuild
- Compare: ArchiSnapper vs CompanyCam
- Compare: Sitemate vs Raken
- Compare: Rhumbix vs busybusy
- Compare: Contractor Foreman vs Knowify
- Compare: ClockShark vs Workyard
- Compare: Workyard vs busybusy
- Compare: Arcoro Time (ExakTime) vs ClockShark
- Compare: FYLD vs Sitemate
- Compare: EarthCam vs TrueLook
- Compare: Sensera Systems vs TrueLook
- Compare: Nyfty.ai vs HammerTech
- Compare: Oculo vs Track3D
- Compare: Evercam vs TrueLook
- Compare: SiteMarker vs Provizual
- Compare: busybusy vs ClockShark
- Compare: busybusy vs MobiClocks
Means & Methods Lab has no commercial relationship with any vendor on this page. Rankings and placement are never for sale. See how we make money.