- Home
- ...
- Field Service Management Software
- ArcGIS Field Maps
- ArcGIS Workforce
- ArcGIS Field Maps-vs-ArcGIS Workforce
Compare ArcGIS Field Maps and ArcGIS Workforce 
- Users report that ArcGIS Workforce excels in its dispatching capabilities, with a score of 9.0, allowing for efficient job assignment and real-time updates, while ArcGIS Field Maps, although strong in other areas, has a lower score of 7.7 for client notifications, indicating potential gaps in communication during field operations.
- Reviewers mention that the ease of setup for ArcGIS Workforce is rated at 8.7, making it user-friendly for new users, whereas ArcGIS Field Maps has a lower score of 7.6, suggesting that users may face challenges during initial configuration.
- G2 users highlight that ArcGIS Workforce provides superior reporting features with a score of 9.3, which allows for comprehensive post-job analysis, while ArcGIS Field Maps, despite its strengths, does not match this level of reporting capability.
- Users on G2 indicate that ArcGIS Workforce has a higher rating for employee communication at 8.7, facilitating better collaboration among team members, compared to ArcGIS Field Maps, which also scores 8.7 but lacks some advanced features that enhance communication.
- Reviewers say that ArcGIS Workforce shines in product direction with a perfect score of 10.0, reflecting strong confidence in the product's future development, while ArcGIS Field Maps has a score of 8.1, indicating some uncertainty among users regarding its long-term roadmap.
- Users report that ArcGIS Workforce's data visualization capabilities are rated at 6.7, which is a significant area of concern, while ArcGIS Field Maps does not have a comparable score, suggesting that users may find it lacking in visual data representation features.
It integrates our databases with offline data collection abilities for cohesive and streamline data management and post production. For our archaeological company, it allows us to convert older maps into basemaps to relocate historic sites.
Collector is amazing!... When it works. It's such a powerful tool for data collection and data sharing. The problem is all of the bugs... sync issues, couldn't update feature issues, the app crashes all of the time on Android, and some of the time on...
It performs without any issues except for disruptions caused by networks. However thats not a software fault. Although some organizations may find the cost to be a drawback the overall cost to benefit ratio is still favorable.
ArcGIS Workforce is super powerful but a bit much for small projects or basic field stuff. If they tweak it, it could totally change the game for me.
It integrates our databases with offline data collection abilities for cohesive and streamline data management and post production. For our archaeological company, it allows us to convert older maps into basemaps to relocate historic sites.
It performs without any issues except for disruptions caused by networks. However thats not a software fault. Although some organizations may find the cost to be a drawback the overall cost to benefit ratio is still favorable.
Collector is amazing!... When it works. It's such a powerful tool for data collection and data sharing. The problem is all of the bugs... sync issues, couldn't update feature issues, the app crashes all of the time on Android, and some of the time on...
ArcGIS Workforce is super powerful but a bit much for small projects or basic field stuff. If they tweak it, it could totally change the game for me.
