Based on intelligence from the Baachu Rain FM Market Report, which tracks over 11,000 live FM contracts worth £49.2 billion across the UK, this guide examines the platforms most frequently encountered in facilities management operations: FaultFixers, Corrigo, MRI Net Facilities and SFG20. We analyse each from the perspective of FM contractors, asset owners and procurement teams evaluating maintenance software investments.

Comparing the Heavy Hitters: Platform-by-Platform Analysis

When selecting or reviewing your current provider, the primary use case determines your ROI. Here's how each platform positions itself:

CAFM vs IWMS: Choosing the Right System Architecture

Understanding the difference between CAFM and IWMS platforms is one of the most consequential decisions in FM software procurement. These are not interchangeable terms — they represent fundamentally different scopes of functionality and organisational fit.

CAFM (Computer-Aided Facilities Management) platforms are operationally focused: they manage planned preventative maintenance schedules, reactive jobs, asset registers and compliance certificates. They are the right choice for FM contractors and in-house teams whose primary challenge is managing maintenance activity at scale.

IWMS (Integrated Workplace Management Systems) go further — incorporating space planning, lease administration, capital project management, energy and sustainability reporting and employee experience tools. They are suited to corporate occupiers and large estate owners seeking a single platform across their entire property portfolio.

Building Safety Act Compliance and the Golden Thread

The Building Safety Act 2022 has fundamentally changed the compliance requirements for higher-risk buildings in the UK. FM software platforms are now expected to support the 'golden thread' — a continuous, digital record of building information that must be maintained, updated and made available to the Building Safety Regulator throughout the life of a building.

For FM directors and digital transformation teams, this means software selection is no longer just about operational efficiency. It is a compliance decision. Platforms that cannot store, structure and retrieve asset data in line with the golden thread requirement are a liability, not an asset.

Key questions to ask any FM software vendor:

• Does the platform support golden thread data requirements under the Building Safety Act?
• Can it produce a structured asset information record on demand?
• Is it integrated with BIM or capable of ingesting IFC data?
• Does it support audit trails for safety-critical maintenance activities?

The SFG20 Factor: The Non-Negotiable Standard

In 2026, no software exists in a vacuum. SFG20 (via the Facilities-iQ platform) is the UK's recognised standard for building maintenance specifications, providing over 800 pre-defined maintenance task schedules. With the tightening of UK building safety laws, using SFG20-aligned software is the only way to prove 'statutory' versus 'discretionary' maintenance spend.

Five Use Cases Driving Platform Selection

From a user perspective, buyers are typically solving one of five problems:

• 1

  Compliance Risk Reduction
  Fire safety, gas safety, water hygiene, electrical testing and lift inspections. Post-Grenfell regulatory scrutiny has intensified. Audit traceability is no longer optional—your system must demonstrate golden threads of compliance data and evidence corrective action closure.

• 2

  Averaged Annualised Spend Visibility
  FM leaders require annualised reactive spend per asset, PPM cost versus reactive cost ratios, contractor performance benchmarking and lifecycle cost forecasting. Software must support commercial oversight, not just ticket logging.

• 3

  Contractor Control & SLA Governance
  Without structured systems, variations escalate, SLAs drift and response times degrade. Digital platforms formalise accountability and provide vendor performance tracking.

• 4

  Portfolio Standardisation
  Asset owners increasingly mandate single operating platforms, unified reporting frameworks and standardised compliance structures across their portfolios.

• 5

  Integration Strategy
  Is this a standalone tool, integrated with CAFM, feeding into CMMS, or embedded in an IWMS? This is a strategic decision with long-term implications.

Standalone Tool vs API-Integrated Platform: Where Tenders Fail

The 'All-in-One' versus 'Best-of-Breed' debate is where many tenders fail. Here's the trade-off:

Standalone Tool: Faster deployment (4-8 weeks), lower upfront cost, focused functionality. However, creates data silos, duplicate reporting and limited long-term scalability.

API-Integrated (CAFM, CMMS, IWMS): Enterprise reporting, financial integration, single source of truth, better board-level visibility. Trade-offs include longer implementation (3-9 months), higher integration cost and governance complexity.

Financial Realities: Spend, Duration and Tender Dynamics

The industry standard has shifted from 1-year rolling contracts to 3-5 year fixed terms, reflecting the high 'cost of change' and need for data continuity. Implementation periods typically span 3-9 months depending on integration complexity.

The key metric decision makers assess: Does the platform reduce reactive overspend by more than its licence cost? If it doesn't generate measurable savings or risk reduction, it becomes 'cost of doing business' rather than value creation.

Common tender triggers include portfolio acquisition, regulatory failure, system end-of-life and board-level audit pressure. A critical mistake: letting IT dominate selection without FM commercial input. The system must work operationally first. For guidance on Hard FM estimating during tender, or when considering outsourcing FM estimating to specialist bid teams, ensure your software selection aligns with your commercial model before committing to a platform.

Practical Selection Checklist: Three Questions Before You Commit

If you are currently reviewing your software, ask these three questions:

• ✓
  Does it automate SFG20 updates? (Reducing your risk spend and proving statutory compliance)
• ✓
  Is the data portable? (Crucial for the next tender cycle—asset history must transfer)
• ✓
  Is the adoption rate above 80% for technicians? (A tool is only as good as the data entered)

Current Market Perception: The Uncomfortable Truth

In interviews across the UK FM market, maintenance systems are generally seen as a necessary risk layer and an industry standard expectation—but rarely a competitive differentiator. Most are often under-utilised. If your system is only viewed internally as compliance insurance, you are not extracting strategic value from it. The right platform becomes invisible infrastructure that quietly protects your assets. The wrong choice creates friction for years.