Head to head
CxAlloy tracks issues against equipment. Facility Grid tracks commissioning against assets.
These two come up together on building and data centre shortlists, and the distinction is genuinely fine. Both manage commissioning checklists, testing and issue resolution for facility projects. This page compares them on the dimensions that change the day-to-day experience, and is honest about the point where the whole category stops matching an industrial contract.
The short answer
CxAlloy vs Facility Grid: the verdict
- Best for
- Building and data centre teams weighing two asset-led commissioning platforms
- Last reviewed
CxAlloy and Facility Grid are close relatives: both organise commissioning around assets or equipment and deliver an owner turnover package. CxAlloy's emphasis is issue tracking against equipment records; Facility Grid's is commissioning execution against asset lists and functional performance testing. Choose on which half of that sentence describes your reporting. If the client requires certified subsystems with enforced prerequisites, the requirement points outside this category entirely.
Choose CxAlloy if
- Reporting is driven by what issues remain outstanding
- You work across many building projects or a portfolio
- Equipment records with attached issues match your process
Choose Facility Grid if
- Reporting is driven by test and checklist completion
- Functional performance testing is the centre of the scope
- Operational readiness of a facility is the endpoint
Choose Deskely if
- Subsystems are certified against signed inspection records
- The register comes from EPC and vendor data, not a facility asset list
- Preservation and loop checks run against live equipment
- Handover is judged on the completeness of the evidence dossier
The problem
Two asset-led models, one decision.
Both are organised around assets or equipment rather than tags rolled into subsystems, which makes them closer to each other than either is to a completions system.
Asset lists versus tag registers
An asset list is a flat inventory of things to test. A tag register is a hierarchy where every record belongs to a subsystem that will be certified. The second is a contractual structure, not a filing preference.
Where testing evidence lives
Ask each vendor whether photos, readings and signatures bind to the individual record or attach to a project folder. At audit, the difference is hours versus days.
Offline behaviour
Data halls, plant rooms and roof plant all lose signal. Test whether records queue locally and sync on reconnect, rather than accepting mobile access as a yes.
The turnover package
Both produce owner turnover documentation. Neither is designed to refuse a certificate whose prerequisites are unmet, because that is not what building turnover requires.
What you get
Where Deskely sits in this comparison.
Deskely is not a third building commissioning tool. It is a completions system for industrial and energy scopes, where the tag register is the spine and every certificate is derived from signed evidence beneath it.
Tag and subsystem master data
One register imported from the EPC data, with every record hanging off a tag that belongs to a subsystem.
Learn moreTemplated ITRs executed offline
Inspection and test records completed on tablet in the plant with no signal, synced on reconnect.
Learn moreGated certificates
MCC, RFC and RFSU issued only when the underlying records are signed and blocking punch is closed.
Learn moreCategory-driven punch
A and B categorisation that gates the certificate rather than sitting in a status column.
Learn morePreservation on live equipment
Scheduled preservation routines against tags, with overdue exposure visible before it becomes a warranty argument.
Learn moreDrawing and data ingestion
P&IDs and vendor registers parsed into tags so the register is populated from source documents, not typed.
Learn moreHow it runs
How to run the evaluation.
- 01
Write down your handover deliverable
A turnover package of completed equipment tests is a different artefact from a certified subsystem dossier. The deliverable decides the category before any demo does.
- 02
Test the gate, not the feature list
Ask each product to issue a completion certificate with an unsigned test record and an open category A punch. If it allows it, gating is advisory.
- 03
Run one real subsystem
Load a genuine equipment or tag list, execute the records, raise punch and close it out. A trial on real data separates the shortlist faster than a feature grid.
- 04
Check the field case
Test the mobile experience where the work actually happens, including with the device offline, before signing anything.
Side by side
CxAlloy vs Facility Grid, side by side.
Based on each vendor's own public positioning. Both are established in building and data centre commissioning.
| Aspect | CxAlloy | Facility Grid |
|---|---|---|
| Primary emphasis | Issue tracking and equipment records. | Commissioning execution against asset lists. |
| Common scopes | Buildings, healthcare, education, portfolios. | Buildings and data centre commissioning. |
| Organising structure | Project, equipment, issue. | Project, asset, checklist and functional test. |
| Deliverable | Closeout documentation and issue reporting. | Owner turnover package. |
| Subsystem certification | Not the design target. | Not the design target. |
| Pricing | Quote-based; not published. | Quote-based; not published. |
What changes
Asset-led
both organise around assets, not subsystems
Turnover
package rather than gated certificates
Data centres
where the two shortlists overlap most
Free plan
to trial the completions model directly
Before you shortlist
Estimate what your current process costs
Enter your tag count and record handling time to see the admin hours and cost in play — then book a demo against your own numbers.
FAQ
Questions about cxalloy vs facility grid.
Compare
Other alternatives teams evaluate.
Commissioning software vs Excel
Teams whose completions register has outgrown a spreadsheet
CompareCommissioning software vs construction management software
Projects already running a construction platform that cannot certify subsystems
CompareDigital commissioning vs paper checksheets
Field teams still transcribing signed checksheets into a tracker
CompareBluerithm alternative
Industrial and energy scopes certified per subsystem, not per building system
CompareCxAlloy alternative
Teams needing certificate-driven handover rather than issue tracking
CompareCxPlanner alternative
Industrial commissioning where progress must be derived from signed evidence
CompareFacility Grid alternative
EPC completions with contractual milestones rather than operational readiness
CompareProcore for commissioning: the alternative
Projects keeping Procore for construction and adding a completions layer
CompareLegacy completions systems
Teams carrying long setup cycles, per-seat licensing and vendor-dependent change
CompareBluerithm vs CxAlloy
Building commissioning teams deciding between the two market leaders
CompareBluerithm vs CxPlanner
Commissioning providers choosing between configurability and a fast start
CompareProcore vs CxAlloy
Teams deciding whether commissioning belongs inside the construction platform
Compare
