Compare your AI advisory workflow
Choose your own approach to compare with configured SoilBeat. AI can make a useful prototype faster and cheaper. Replace the illustrative setup/development hours with your own estimate; no cost is inferred from SoilBeat’s development history.
Comparison baseline: your methodology in a connected farm-data, recommendation, expert-review and follow-up workflow. Confirm the capabilities included in your configuration.
Use AI-assisted development to build your own interface, data model, calculations and advisory workflows.
AI can reduce implementation effort. You still need to specify, validate and maintain the workflow safeguards your clients require.
Changing approach resets the starting hours and your own readiness answers. Other cost inputs stay unchanged. A focused AI tool may be enough for your needs; check the required capabilities before comparing costs.
Does the workflow support reliable advice?
For each option, mark what is available, what needs adding and what you still need to verify. An AI assistant or self-built platform can include these safeguards. Neither AI-generated code nor a platform subscription proves they are implemented for your use case.
Farm, field, crop and measurements with dates, units, sources and history.
Defined rules, calculations, limits and management plan templates.
Missing data, conflicting evidence and unsuitable outputs are flagged.
The agronomist reviews and approves advice before it reaches a client.
Evidence, versions, edits and the approved recommendation remain connected.
Field activities and later measurements connect to the original advice.
This is a capability checklist, not a numerical risk score. No cost is automatically assigned to a gap. Budget the work you need in the fields below.
Compare setup, operation and advisor time
Your AI approach: setup and operation
Your practice with SoilBeat
The pricing page lists Organization pricing as custom plus a platform fee, with pooled capacity agreed for your team. The minimum is 3 seats. Enter the complete annual quote above; fixed platform, per-seat and farm allowances are not assumed. VAT is not modeled.
The recurring work around each recommendation
Enter preparation and review time for both options. SoilBeat still requires agronomic judgment and approval. Measure your own workflow or use a trial; no time-saving advantage is assumed.
Your chosen AI approach
Configured SoilBeat
Annual advisor-time cost = ((monthly recommendations × preparation and review minutes ÷ 60) + monthly workflow-maintenance hours) × hourly time cost × 12. Blank values remain unconfirmed and are excluded; enter 0 only when no time applies.
Organization quote needed for comparison
Quote required
Enter your quoted annual Organization subscription to compare costs.
The comparison needs an annual Organization quote. Unconfirmed setup charges, additional usage and advisor-time entries are excluded from provisional totals. Complete all quoted costs and time estimates before relying on the difference.
AI-built advisory platform
0 capabilities to add · 6 to verify
To verify: Structured agronomic context; Your agronomic methodology; Checks before advice; Explicit expert approval; Traceable recommendations; Execution and follow-up.
Configured SoilBeat
0 capabilities to add · 6 to verify
To verify: Structured agronomic context; Your agronomic methodology; Checks before advice; Explicit expert approval; Traceable recommendations; Execution and follow-up.
Build · €25,640
- Setup / development
- €15,200
- Other one-off costs
- €0
- Maintenance · 3 years
- €6,840
- Running costs · 3 years
- €3,600
- Entered advisor time · 3 years
- €0 · incomplete
SoilBeat · Quote required
- Quoted subscription · 3 years
- To confirm
- Custom implementation
- To confirm · excluded
- Additional usage/services · 3 years
- To confirm · excluded
- Entered advisor time · 3 years
- €0 · incomplete
Build capacity estimate: 1.2 months at 1,600 productive hours per engineer/year. Procurement, coordination, validation and rollout can change delivery time. SoilBeat onboarding timing is agreed after scoping.
This model compares setup and operating costs plus the value of entered advisor time. Opportunity cost is not necessarily a cash expense. Financing, delayed revenue and future feature work are excluded unless entered. Checklist answers do not adjust costs automatically. Totals are estimates, not offers or guaranteed savings.
Discuss your scope and get a white-label quoteWhat buying can give you
Build on a platform. Keep the focus on your advice.
Your brand and workflow
The Organization offering includes white-label and tailored AI. Define the branding, advisory workflow and configuration you need as part of your scope.
Connected farm information
Lab reports, analytics, recommendations and activities can live in the same platform, with farmer invitations and shared workflows.
Ongoing platform development
Buying shifts core platform development away from your practice. Confirm the support, maintenance, update policy and service commitments included in your agreement.
Budget for the full lifecycle
A focused prototype can be a good choice. A client-facing service also needs a plan for what happens after launch.
Validation and reliability
Budget for agronomic validation, scenario testing, permissions and recovery from failed imports—not just the happy path. AI recommendations need review and appropriate safeguards in either option.
Operation and continuity
Hosting, backups, monitoring, dependency updates and access control need an owner. If a developer leaves, documentation and handover determine how smoothly you can maintain the tool.
Client adoption and support
Include onboarding, user support and training. Buying can reduce engineering work, while your own client support and configuration responsibilities still need to be agreed.
Control, methods and data: ask before choosing
Resolve these questions for both a developer proposal and a SoilBeat white-label agreement. The answers depend on the agreed scope and contract.
Can the platform express my advisory methods?
Show a real advisory workflow, calculation and report. Confirm which rules you can configure, what needs custom work, who can update it and how changes are validated. Tailored AI does not automatically mean unrestricted custom development.
Who owns my methods and custom work?
You retain ownership of your proprietary agronomic methods and AI Skills, and customers retain ownership of uploaded farm data. Agree the ownership or license for any custom code and the export scope separately from SoilBeat’s platform software.
How can I export data or leave?
Agree export formats, included records, attachments, access rights, timing, fees, retention and deletion. Check what can move to another system and what assistance is available. Do not assume portability from a sales description.
What support and changes are included?
Confirm onboarding, response times, security responsibilities, maintenance, included updates, usage limits, price changes and the process for additional features. Include these terms in your cost comparison.
Experience behind the platform
SoilBeat has been developed for more than 3 years with an average team of 4 engineers, bringing together agronomy, software and client workflows. Your own build should be estimated against the specific capabilities you need.
Ask for a demonstration using your own workflow and discuss the validation and support relevant to your clients.
When building is a sensible choice
- You need a small internal tool and can maintain it within your own practice.
- Your critical workflow cannot be configured in an available platform, and you have validated the gap.
- You want to operate a software product and have the budget, team and continuity plan to support it.
You can also start with an existing platform and build a specialized tool alongside it. Confirm integration options and data access before choosing a hybrid approach.
Discuss your scope and get a white-label quote