Map My Customers
Field execution platform for outside sales, built around a map of the rep's accounts rather than a list. Territory drawing and automatic generation, multi day route optimization, activity capture and check ins, and an offline mobile application form the base, with two way synchronization into the four major customer relationship platforms and an enterprise resource system. A field agent takes voice debriefs after a visit, drafts follow ups and briefs the rep before the next stop. The top tier pairs field activity with revenue and order outcomes into weekly executive summaries and per rep coaching pages, staffed by a named strategy engineer. A separate healthcare intelligence line handles claims data, and the platform is built for buyers covered by health information rules.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
17 of 17 axes rated · 9 graded A or B
A model layer sits on top of a mature mapping and routing product and the removal test settles it cleanly. Territory drawing, multi day route optimisation, activity capture, check ins, the offline mobile application, two way synchronisation and the reporting all survive without it, and those are the capabilities the product was built on from 2015.
The model features are real and specific rather than decorative, a field agent taking voice debriefs and drafting follow ups, executive summaries generated from activity data, but they arrive as tier upgrades on an existing platform. This is the established platform pattern the convention describes, applied here to a ten year old vendor rather than an enterprise suite.
Administrative oversight is enumerated per tier rather than asserted: role based permissions on every plan, audit logging from the middle tier, single sign on and federated identity, custom data retention policies on enterprise plans, and a service level agreement. The field agent's own design keeps a human in the loop by construction, since it takes a debrief the rep records, drafts a follow up the rep sends, and suggests next steps rather than taking them.
Off the top band because the agent's drafting boundary is described in marketing rather than documented, and nothing states whether a generated executive summary or a coaching page is reviewed before a manager acts on it. That matters more here than on a drafting tool, because these outputs feed rep performance management.
Three distinct model driven surfaces are marketed by name, an email assistant available on every tier, a field agent taking voice debriefs on the upper tiers, and executive summaries generated from activity and check in data at the top. Not one of them carries a model, provider, version, hosting location or boundary anywhere on the pages read.
The voice debrief is where the gap bites hardest, because speech from a rep's day is being processed by an unnamed system at a company that elsewhere documents its compliance posture in unusual detail, and a buyer covered by health information rules would need to know where that audio goes.
The evidence surface is deep by the standards of this index: a customer stories section with named accounts, quotes attributed to named individuals with titles and employers including a vice president of operations at a flooring manufacturer and a vice president of sales at a hose distributor, a logo wall of six identifiable companies across diagnostics, engine remanufacture, healthcare, tyres, food distribution and consumer finance, plus webinars named after specific customers, a podcast, a research section and a return calculator.
Scale is quantified twice and inconsistently, at more than 1,000 sales teams on one page and more than 4,000 field reps on another, which are compatible but unreconciled. Off the top band because the one quantified outcome claim, drive time cut by 30 percent and face to face meetings doubled in the first month, is attributed only to an unnamed vice president at an unnamed medical device company, so the sharpest number on the site is the one a buyer cannot check.
This product does not run outbound campaigns, so the axis bites lightly and is graded on what is knowable, as the sibling rule requires. Two surfaces do touch it. An email assistant ships on every tier and email history and reporting are captured, so messages are drafted and sent through the platform without any named statute, consent position, unsubscribe mechanism or suppression list appearing anywhere.
And a lead finder supplies prospect records at 125 or 200 searches per user each month, so new contacts enter the system and are then emailed, with no stated position on the basis for that first contact. Neither is a campaign engine and both are real enough to note.
The published set is complete and easy to find: a privacy policy, terms, a standalone data processing addendum at its own address, a cookie policy with a working preference manager offering a reject option alongside accept, and an imprint. The compliance position is stated precisely rather than as a badge, with a business associate agreement offered to customers covered by health information rules and readiness for the European regulation asserted with the addendum behind it.
Custom data retention policies are listed as an enterprise entitlement. Off the top band on scope rather than form. The policy documents themselves were not read for this build, no sub processor register was located, and the healthcare claims line and the voice debrief feature both raise questions about categories of personal data that nothing on the pages read addresses. Flagged for re verification.
Three data sources feed this product and the buyer's own records are the only one explained. A lead finder supplies prospect records at a published monthly search allowance per user, demographic and territory data is included on every tier, and proprietary data services plus healthcare claims intelligence sit at the top of the range. For all three, the supplier, database, licence, refresh cadence and coverage go unnamed on the pages read.
Claims data is the sharpest instance: it is a regulated category with its own permitted use rules, it is sold here as territory intelligence, and nothing published states where it comes from or on what basis it may be used for targeting.
Exposure is low by construction and the reason is worth stating, since this axis has done heavy work across this alphabetical block. Every integration named is an official, documented connector into a system the customer already licenses, four customer relationship platforms and an enterprise resource system, alongside a public interface, secure file transfer loading and file import.
Nothing scrapes a platform, rents an identity, rotates an address, drives a browser extension against terms that prohibit it, or relays mail through infrastructure the vendor does not control. Under the convention, official connectors plus the vendor's own infrastructure is this band, with the top reserved for a stated conformance position, and none is published.
The stewardship apparatus around conventional data is genuinely strong, with an audited security certification, a business associate agreement for covered customers, custom retention policies and an audit log. The specific question this axis asks goes unanswered anyway. Whether customer data trains or tunes the models behind the email assistant, the field agent or the executive summaries, and whether anything learned in one account can surface in another, is not addressed anywhere read.
The gap is conspicuous precisely because this vendor is careful elsewhere: a company that publishes a processing addendum and offers a covered entity agreement has the legal machinery to answer the training question and has not.
Most of what this platform does happens face to face, where the rep is unambiguously themselves and no authenticity question arises. One surface does raise it. An email assistant drafts messages on every tier and a field agent drafts follow ups on the upper ones, both sent under the rep's own name from the rep's own address after a real visit, and no position on disclosing machine authorship appears anywhere. The European obligation is unaddressed. This is a milder version of the question than the manufactured personas graded elsewhere in this block, since the relationship and the visit are real and only the drafting is not.
This is the deepest integration surface graded in this session and each element is documented at its own address rather than listed as a logo. Two way synchronisation with the four major customer relationship platforms, each with its own integration page, plus an enterprise resource system, a public interface with developer documentation, secure file transfer data loading, file import, calendar synchronisation, external resource syncing and a data merger.
Two way is the default on every tier including the entry plan, which is the distinguishing fact: two vendors graded earlier in this same session gate full two way synchronisation to a custom priced enterprise tier, and this one does not. Mobile applications ship for both platforms with an offline mode, and a public status page covers availability. The interface is gated above the entry tier, which is the only thing worth a buyer's attention here.
Corporate presence is published properly, with two named offices at street addresses in North Carolina and New York and an imprint page, which is more than most vendors in this session offer. Residency itself is missing. Processing region, storage location, transfer mechanism and any customer choice are all unstated on the pages read, and encryption at rest and in transit is asserted without a location attached.
Readiness for the European regulation is claimed and a processing addendum is published, so the transfer question is presumably answered inside a document that was not read for this build. Flagged for re verification rather than graded lower.
A live trust centre is hosted on a recognised compliance automation platform and linked from both the pricing page and the site footer, which means a buyer reaches current attestations without a sales conversation or a request form.
Around it sit an audited service organisation control report at the type that covers operating effectiveness over time, a business associate agreement available to customers covered by health information rules, readiness for the European regulation with a published processing addendum, single sign on and federated identity, role based permissions on every tier, audit logging, custom data retention policies, a custom service level agreement, encryption stated at rest and in transit, and a public status page. Self service access to the attestations is the distinction this index draws between the top two bands, and it is met here.
Three tiers publish a per seat annual price, 99, 139 and 199 dollars per user per month, above a comparison table running to roughly sixty rows that marks every feature by tier and distinguishes what is included from what is an add on. Seat minimums are published for each plan at five, ten and thirty five users, which is the number that actually determines whether a buyer can afford the tier and which most vendors leave to a sales call.
A non profit discount is stated at 25 percent, upgrade and downgrade timing is explained, and multi year and volume discounting are disclosed as available. Two things hold it off the top band. Six capabilities are marked as add ons with no price attached anywhere, including single sign on and advanced reporting at the entry tier, so the real bill is not computable from the page.
And the vendor's own answers contradict the page: the frequently asked questions state that pricing is custom because field teams vary and direct the reader to a demo, while the pricing page is headed with a claim of transparent plans and prints three figures.
The exit position is stronger than most in this index and the reason is structural rather than a stated policy. Two way synchronisation runs on every tier, so the customer's accounts, activity and contact history are continuously written back into a system of record they already own, which means the most valuable data never lives only here.
Around that sit a public interface above the entry tier, secure file transfer loading, custom data retention policies on enterprise plans and mileage logs described as exportable. Off the top band because no post termination data right, deletion timeline, retrieval window or export function for the platform's own artefacts is stated on the pages read, the terms were not read, and the commercial exit is tight: plans are twelve month commitments, downgrades take effect only at annual renewal, and nothing published describes what happens to territory configuration or field history at the end of a term.
This platform is not built to send at volume and the axis is graded on what is knowable rather than skipped, per the sibling rule for categories that do not send. What exists is real enough to record: an email assistant on every tier, email history and reporting, and a lead finder feeding new contacts into the same system.
What is absent is every mechanism this axis measures, with no sending limit, warmup guidance, throttling control, bounce handling, complaint threshold, authentication guidance or suppression list published anywhere. A buyer should read the absence as structural rather than as a disclosure failure, since the volume here is a rep writing follow ups after visits rather than a campaign engine.
Coverage is documented to a depth almost nothing in this index matches, and in both dimensions at once. Ten industries are named individually with their own anchored sections, from medical devices and diagnostics through building materials, industrial distribution and machinery to automotive services and virtual care, alongside four buying roles each with a dedicated page.
The tier structure then encodes the segment boundaries numerically rather than describing them, with published seat minimums of five, ten and thirty five reps and a stated threshold above fifty reps where a bespoke quote applies, so a buyer can locate themselves precisely and can also see where they are too small. Named customers span six distinct verticals and corroborate the industry claims rather than merely illustrating them. The regulated segment is served explicitly, with a covered entity agreement and a separate healthcare claims intelligence line, which is a real market commitment rather than a positioning line.
Pricing
What this vendor charges, what it commits to in writing, and where the bill can move. Figures the vendor publishes itself are labeled Vendor Published. Figures labeled Estimated come from other sources and the vendor has not confirmed them.
- ›Three plans at $99, $139 and $199 per user a month, and every one is paid annually. There is no monthly option shown, so the smallest commitment is a full year at whatever seat count you buy.
- ›The security disclosure here is the best I have seen on any pricing page in this work. It names the certification and its type level, states health information compliance, European regulation readiness, single sign on and encryption at rest and in transit, and says all of it is included on every plan rather than reserved for the expensive tier.
- ›Most companies gate those features to the top tier or hide them behind a contact form.
- ›One cost driver to check before you pick a tier: record limits are 50,000 on one plan and unlimited above, so a big territory account list may move you up on data rather than features.
- ›Ask about the user minimum. They raise the question on their own page and the answer did not load.
How the price works
What you are charged for, and what makes the bill go up.
Per seat subscription across three published tiers, all stated as paid annually with no monthly option presented.
Published rates are $99, $139 and $199 per user per month, paid annually, running from a standard execution tier through an advanced execution tier flagged as most popular to a strategic execution tier. The vendor describes the plans as transparent and scaling with the team.
Record limits are published per tier at 50,000 records on one level and unlimited above.
Security and compliance are published on the pricing page and stated as included on every plan: certification to the second type of the service organization control standard, compliance with the United States health information regime, readiness for the European regulation, single sign on with security assertion markup, and encryption at rest and in transit.
Published capabilities include territory mapping, record system synchronization, route planning, advanced analytics, field performance tools, interface access on the upper tier, and automatic mileage tracking with revenue service compliant logs and exportable reports.
The vendor publishes its own questions regarding plan switching and whether a minimum number of users applies, with the answers not rendering.
No trial term, free tier or seat minimum figure is established.
What the contract says about your data
What the vendor commits to in writing once your data is in the product.
The strongest security disclosure recorded on a pricing page in this index, and it is published as an entitlement rather than buried on a separate trust surface.
The vendor states a named certification with its type level, being audited to the second type of the service organization control standard, together with compliance with the United States health information regime, readiness for the European regulation, availability of single sign on and security assertion markup, and encryption of data both at rest and in transit. It further states that enterprise grade security is included on every plan rather than gated to the upper tier.
Naming the type level matters and almost nothing in this index does it. The second type attests that controls operated effectively over a period rather than existing at a point in time, which is the distinction a buyer's security function actually asks about, and publishing it alongside the price rather than behind a contact form is unusual.
The health information claim is the more consequential one for this product. Field sales platforms are widely deployed in medical device and pharmaceutical distribution, where representatives visit clinical sites and may encounter protected health information incidentally. A vendor stating compliance with that regime on its pricing page is signaling it expects those buyers.
What was not established: a signable processing agreement, an enumerated sub processor list, a retention period expressed as a duration, and a residency statement. A buyer in a regulated vertical should request the report and the agreement rather than relying on the claim.
The platform holds representative location and route data, which is employee movement tracking carrying its own obligations.
Getting started
What it costs and what is included before the product is running.
None published and none located. No setup fee, onboarding charge, migration rate, professional services rate or seat minimum figure was found, though the vendor publishes its own question about whether a minimum number of users applies, which indicates one may exist.
That is the term to establish first. A per seat product at $99 to $199 monthly paid annually has a very different entry cost at one seat than at ten, and the vendor raising the question on its own page without a rendered answer means a buyer should ask rather than assume.
All three published rates are stated as paid annually, so the smallest commitment is twelve months at the seat count purchased. At the entry tier a five person field team is $5,940 for the year before anything else.
Record limits differentiate the tiers at 50,000 on one level and unlimited above, so a buyer with a large territory account base may be moved up a tier by data volume rather than by feature need. That is a cost driver worth checking against an existing account list before selecting a tier.
One capability reduces an external cost rather than adding one. Automatic mileage tracking with revenue service compliant logs and exportable reports displaces a separate expense tracking tool for field teams, which is a real line item for organizations reimbursing driving.
An interface access entitlement is published on the upper tier, so integration work sits with the buyer at that level rather than being sold as a service.
What to watch for
Where this pricing can surprise a buyer who has not read it closely.
A per seat ladder published with the annual condition stated in the same breath, and a compliance disclosure that outperforms most dedicated trust pages in this index.
Three tiers are published at $99, $139 and $199 per user per month, each stated as paid annually. The vendor describes the plans as transparent and scaling with the team, and the annual condition is attached to every figure rather than sitting behind a toggle, so a buyer cannot mistake these for monthly rates.
That matters because the alternative arrangement, where an annual rate is displayed and the monthly premium is discovered later, is common in this index. Here there is no monthly option presented at all: annual payment is the published basis and the figures are what a buyer commits to for a year.
Record limits are published per tier, at 50,000 on one level and unlimited above, which is a real differentiator for a field sales platform where the record count is territory accounts rather than prospects.
The compliance disclosure is the standout. A named certification with its type level, health information compliance, readiness for the European regulation, single sign on and encryption at rest and in transit, all published on the pricing page and stated as included on every plan rather than gated. Across nearly a hundred and twenty records this is the most substantive security statement I have found on a pricing surface, and gating security features to upper tiers is the norm this vendor is declining to follow.
One published capability carries its own compliance framing and is worth recording: automatic mileage tracking with logs described as compliant with the revenue service's requirements and exportable. For a field sales team that is a reimbursement and tax artifact rather than a convenience feature.
The vendor publishes its own questions on plan switching and user minimums, indicating both are live buyer concerns, though the answers did not render.
The numeric field carries $99, the entry tier on the published annual basis.