KO Fleetz vs LocoNav: What to Actually Compare
Comparison pages written by vendors have an obvious problem, so this one does not pretend to be a review. It sets out what separates fleet platforms in practice, tells you what to ask every vendor on your list, and says plainly what KO Fleetz does.
Last updated
Fleet platforms in this market look interchangeable in a demo. They all show vehicles on a map, they all produce reports, and every one of them will say yes to a feature question asked in the abstract. The differences that matter turn up months later, in how the system behaves when a device drops offline, when a consignment runs past its e-way bill validity, or when you want your own data back.
So this page is organised around the questions that surface those differences early. Ask them of everyone, including us.
Vendor-neutral
What to compare, whoever you are talking to
These apply to LocoNav, to KO Fleetz, and to anyone else on the list.
Is the hardware tied to the software?
A platform that only works with devices it sells has made a decision on your behalf about every future replacement, every warranty claim and every price rise. That may be an acceptable trade for a single supported stack, but it should be a choice you made knowingly rather than one you discover at the first renewal.
Ask: Which device models does the platform support besides your own? If we already run certified devices from another maker, can they report into this platform, and what is involved?
Who owns the data, and can you get it out?
Every platform holds your operating history — trips, fuel events, maintenance records, consignments. The value of that history is realised when you leave, which is precisely when a vendor has the least incentive to help. An export that exists only as a screenshot-quality PDF is not an export.
Ask: Can we export the full historical record in a machine-readable format, on demand, without a support ticket? Is there an API, and does it cover reads of everything the UI shows?
What happens when the device goes quiet?
Vehicles run through areas with no coverage, devices lose power, and units fail. The interesting question is not whether gaps occur but what the platform does about them — whether it stores and forwards, whether it tells you a vehicle is unreported rather than showing a stale position as if it were current, and whether device health is visible before someone notices a vehicle missing from a report.
Ask: Show me a vehicle that has been offline for six hours. What does the screen say, and what alert did anyone receive?
Does the compliance work actually get done, or just recorded?
There is a large difference between a platform that stores your e-way bill numbers and one that generates bills from consignments you already entered, tracks which are approaching expiry, and gets an alert to a named person inside the extension window. The first is a filing cabinet. The second removes the failure mode.
Ask: Walk me through a consignment from booking to delivery, including the e-way bill and the lorry receipt. How much of that is re-keyed by a person?
Do the modules share one record?
Products assembled from separately acquired parts often keep separate vehicle records under one login. It looks integrated until a number in the fuel report disagrees with the same number in the cost report, and reconciling them becomes a monthly ritual nobody owns.
Ask: If I change a vehicle's registration number, where does it change? Show me the fuel, maintenance and trip records for one vehicle and tell me whether they come from the same underlying record.
What does the second year cost?
Quotations are competitive in year one because that is what gets compared. Connectivity renewal, per-vehicle platform fees, device replacement outside warranty and support tiers are where the running cost actually lives, and they are rarely on the first page of a proposal.
Ask: Give me the total for years one, two and three at our fleet size, including connectivity renewal and expected device replacement. What is the price escalation clause?
Our answer
What KO Fleetz does
Each of these links to the module that implements it, so the claim can be checked rather than taken.
One asset spine, and modules that post back to it
KO Fleetz holds a single record per vehicle, and every module writes to it rather than keeping its own copy. Fuel, maintenance, trips, consignments and costs are views of the same asset, which is why the numbers agree without a reconciliation step.
The practical consequence is that you can adopt a part of the platform and add to it without a migration each time. The record deepens as more of the work runs through it.
Tracking treated as a record, not a screen
Position is one input among several — ignition, speed, trip state, geofence and device health — and the system is explicit about gaps rather than presenting a stale fix as a current one. A vehicle that has stopped reporting is shown as unreported.
That distinction matters more than map quality. A dot on a map is easy to sell and quick to stop opening; a record you can query afterwards is what settles a detention argument three weeks later.
Compliance generated from work already recorded
E-way bills are generated from the consignment you already entered rather than re-keyed into a portal, bills in transit stay in view, and the ones running short of validity are surfaced before they expire rather than after.
The same consignment carries its lorry receipt and freight billing, so the compliance document and the commercial document reference each other by construction instead of being matched up later by hand.
The consignment as one continuous record
A booking is a promise: this cargo, this route, this rate. KO Fleetz keeps it as a record of its own and carries it through the lorry receipt and the manifest to a freight bill nobody had to reconstruct from memory.
Where this shows up is in the runs that would otherwise go unfinished — the trip whose advance was never settled and whose freight bill was never raised. Those become a list rather than a discovery.
Frequently asked questions
No, and it does not claim to be. KO Fleetz publishes it. What it offers is a framework you can apply to every vendor on your shortlist, including us, rather than a verdict you are asked to accept.
Because we do not have verified, current data on their product, and publishing assumptions as facts would be misleading regardless of which way it cut. Vendor capabilities also change between releases, so a matrix would age badly even if it were accurate today.
Ask to see a vehicle that has been offline for several hours. How a platform represents missing data tells you more about its engineering than any feature list, because it is the situation vendors do not prepare a demo for.
That is exactly the question to put to any vendor, us included, and to get answered in writing against your specific device models before signing. Device compatibility is a commercial commitment, not a general claim.
Ask every vendor for a three-year total at your actual fleet size, including connectivity renewal, expected device replacement outside warranty, per-vehicle platform fees and the price escalation clause. Year-one quotations are the figure vendors optimise, so they are the least informative.
Put these questions to us
Bring the list. A demo that survives your own tests is worth more than one built to impress.