FieldNET vs its rivals

Side-by-side comparison against FieldNET's closest competitors — identity, store metrics, ratings & sentiment, and strategic intel.

FieldNET
This App
Ceres Imaging
Contender
Lely Control
Contender
Core Identity
DeveloperLindsay Irrigation Solutions LLCPoultry BabaBASF Digital Farming GmbHCeres Imaging, IncCropX Technologies LTDLely Industries N.V.BHZP GmbHCowManager B.V.TeeJet TechnologiesTapLogic, LLC
CategoryBusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessUtilitiesProductivityLibraries & DemoBusinessBusinessUtilities
PlatformAndroid, iOSAndroidiOS, AndroidiOSiOS, AndroidiOS, AndroidAndroid, iOSiOS, AndroidAndroid, iOSiOS, Android
Store Metrics
Rating3.0 / 54.1 / 54.0 / 54.6 / 54.8 / 52.3 / 50.0 / 53.0 / 55.0 / 53.3 / 5
Ratings Count49671713660131024
PriceFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree
Release DateFeb 23, 2018Jan 13, 2021Dec 22, 2018Feb 14, 2017May 4, 2016Aug 26, 2015Mar 14, 2015Sep 17, 2024Apr 30, 2012Sep 16, 2011
Last UpdatedMay 1, 2026May 18, 2026May 11, 2026May 5, 2026May 12, 2026May 6, 2024Apr 21, 2026May 5, 2026Apr 6, 2026Apr 15, 2022
Sentiment & Reviews
Sentiment---positivemixednegative----
Score---85/10055/10025/100----
Praises----
  • Simple and straightforward usability makes the application accessible for agricultural monitoring tasks
  • Core functionality provides basic utility for managing farm robotics when the connection remains stable
----
Complaints----
  • Technical instability and location tracking failures disrupt field monitoring on older hardware
  • Persistent Bluetooth connection failures prevent reliable control of farm robots on modern mobile devices
----
Requests----
  • Integrated field mapping and sensor data visualization to improve crop management precision
  • Expanded hardware support to enable control of additional robotic equipment like the mixer
----
Strategic Intel
Strengths
  • Map-centric interface provides direct control over Lindsay irrigation hardware.
  • Sentinel-2 imagery integration enables seasonal crop trend tracking.
-
  • 20 years of BASF agronomic research functions as a scientific data moat
  • Wireless machine integration creates high switching costs for equipment operators
  • High-resolution multispectral imagery reduces input costs [Market Segment]
  • Offline mode ensures field-level utility [Platform]
  • Proprietary sensor-to-dashboard integration creates high switching costs
  • Predictive agronomic models provide a technical moat against generalist farm apps
  • Proprietary hardware-locked control interface creates high switching costs
  • Direct integration with Lely barn robotics ensures essential operational utility
-
  • Automated clinical sign detection functions as a B2B distribution barrier into large-scale dairy operations
  • Ear-sensor hardware integration provides granular individual animal data unreachable by satellite-only competitors
  • Hardware-specific recommendation engine drives direct TeeJet equipment adoption
  • Search settings persistence reduces re-calculation time for repeat applications
  • 14,000+ chemical database functions as a comprehensive reference moat
  • Offline sync capability ensures utility in remote field environments
Weaknesses
  • Lack of high-frequency market data creates a daily-habit deficit.
  • Android-iOS rating gap suggests inconsistent performance across platforms.
-
  • No commodity price tracking forces users to external apps
  • Satellite-only modeling lacks the ground-truth accuracy of sensor-based rivals
  • Consultation-based pricing creates high adoption barriers [Pricing Strategy]
  • No direct machine-to-field integration [Feature Gap]
  • Technical instability and GPS failures on older hardware erode user trust
  • Lack of integrated commodity market data forces users to switch apps
  • 2.33 iOS rating reflects persistent Bluetooth instability
  • Reliance on obsolete mobile devices creates operational friction
  • Interface scaling issues obscure critical controls
-
  • 3.0 rating on iOS indicates significant friction in the user experience
  • Hardware-dependent model limits scalability compared to software-only agricultural management apps
  • 1.89-point Android-iOS rating gap indicates inconsistent cross-platform performance
  • Lack of offline synchronization limits utility in remote field environments
  • 2.69 rating on Android indicates significant UX friction
  • No major feature updates since 2022 on iOS
  • Manual entry flow is slower than hardware-integrated rivals
Pricingfreefreefreemiumfreemiumfreemiumfreefreesubscriptionfreefree
MomentumMaintenance-MaintenanceMaintenanceMaintenanceMaintenance-MaintenanceMaintenanceZombie
Update Cadence2 versions, ~0d avg-2 versions, ~3d avg1 versions2 versions, 1 majors/6mo, ~14d avg2 versions, ~500d avg-2 versions, 2 majors/6mo, ~6d avg5 versions, 2 majors/6mo, ~22d avg5 versions, ~307d avg

Compare FieldNET head-to-head

Disclosure: Independent intel to help mobile builders succeed.

AI-powered analysis with editorial review, built from publicly available sources. Marlvel.ai is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by FieldNET, its developer, the app publisher, Apple, or Google Play. All trademarks, logos, and screenshots referenced remain the property of their respective owners.

Data licensed under CC-BY-NC 4.0