If you are comparing Infobric alternatives, you are probably trying to stop losing kit and to stop paying for returns you cannot prove. Replacing your rental system gets you a new hire desk, and leaves both of those problems where they were.
At-a-glance: three systems, three questions
| The question at off-hire (US: off-rent) | Rental system of record | Machine telematics | Asset-level control layer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the contract close and what do we invoice? | Yes, this is its job | No | Feeds it the return facts |
| Where is the excavator right now? | Depot or on hire | Yes, to the metre | Last scan, last holder, last movement |
| Which of the nine items on that docket came back? | Line quantities, not identities | Only what carries a device | Each unit, by its own identity |
| Who held the props between contractor and subcontractor? | One customer per contract | Not applicable | Every handover, with the party who signed |
| Can we settle a disputed return with evidence? | Depot note, if one was written | Position history, machines only | Scan, time, place, person, photo |
| Does the fence panel, hose or prop have any of this? | Counted in bulk | No engine, no device | A code, so it gets the same treatment |
Use that split as your filter. Most rental buyers already have the first column, increasingly have the second, and are losing money in the third.
What should you check first when evaluating Infobric alternatives?
Start by naming which of the three questions above is actually costing you money. If it is contracts, rates and invoicing, you are shopping for a rental ERP and the incumbent options are mature. If it is loss, damage and disputed returns, a rental ERP replacement is an expensive way to not solve it, because the unit it manages is the contract line, not the individual item.
Before any demo, write down five pass or fail requirements:
- Asset-level identity: can the system name the individual unit, not the line quantity?
- Coverage without hardware: does it work on items with no telematics and no power?
- Cross-party handovers: can it record custody moving between your depot, a carrier, a main contractor and a subcontractor?
- Evidence at the point of dispute: scan, timestamp, location, person, photo, attached to the contested move.
- Coexistence: can it run over your current rental system rather than replacing it?
A vendor that scores well on one to four but demands a replatform to get there has quietly moved your project from a quarter to a year.
Where does machine-first tooling stop for rental companies?
Infobric’s rental line is a rental business system plus a machine-data platform. Its published positioning is that Infobric “gives machine rental companies the digital tools they need to take control, simplifying rental processes, centralising inventory, and automating invoicing” (infobric.com, checked 2026-09-08), with Infobric Machines adding location, usage and operation data, service forecasts, geofence zones and deviation alerts (infobric.com press, checked 2026-09-08).
Two facts a buyer should hold next to that scope. First, the rental business area was assembled by acquisition, with Hyrma, Winhyra and Intershare bringing the Onlet and Wincar systems and customer bases described in Sweden and Norway (Infobric press release, checked 2026-09-08). Second, Machines was “initially being launched in the Swedish and Norwegian markets” (infobric.com press, checked 2026-09-08). If you are running depots in the Netherlands or Belgium, product availability, local language and support are questions to settle before the commercial ones.
The bigger structural point is the unit of control. When the product is organised around machines and their data, the things that are neither machines nor data-emitting fall outside it. That residue is most of what leaves your yard.
Which assets actually leak, and why does telematics miss them?
The European Rental Association estimates that theft and vandalism cost roughly €1.5bn a year across construction, rental and agriculture in Europe, with the rental industry alone above €500m a year. The revealing number is the split: more than 30,000 heavy units and 300,000 smaller units stolen annually, with recovery rates of 5% to 20% against 50% to 60% for cars (ERA Theft and Vandalism Prevention Guide, via International Rental News, retrieved 2026-09-08).
That is ten smaller units for every heavy one. The heavy one has a control unit, an OEM cloud feed and a geofence. The other ten are hoses, moil points, harnesses, buckets, props, panels, trench boxes, barriers, fencing, mats, cages and tanks. Industry commentary is direct about why they stay invisible: non-powered and specialty assets “are less likely to be outfitted with OEM telematics devices”, and rental companies do not always fit aftermarket ones (InTempo, checked 2026-09-08).
So the losses concentrate exactly where device-based visibility is thinnest, and no amount of machine data closes that gap. A €200 tracker on a €90 fence panel never pays back. A printed code does, which is why the coverage question is a cost question before it is a technology one.
How do you score alternatives for a mixed rental fleet?
Weight the scorecard by what failure costs you, not by demo polish. Rental teams routinely over-weight the scheduling screen and under-weight dispute closure, which is where margin actually leaves the business.
| Criterion | Weight | What good looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Asset-level identity across the whole fleet | 25% | Every unit addressable, including consumable-adjacent kit and accessories |
| Works on non-powered assets | 20% | Identity by code, not by device; no per-asset hardware cost |
| Cross-party custody and handovers | 20% | Custody changes recorded between legal entities, not just locations |
| Evidence chain for disputes | 15% | Scan, time, place, person and photo attached to the contested movement |
| Coexistence with your rental ERP | 10% | Runs alongside contracts and invoicing, no replatform |
| Rollout path | 10% | One depot and one route family live in weeks, then a repeatable template |
Score three vendors against a real docket from last month, ideally one that ended in a credit note. Demo data will make every product look competent.
What does a first rollout look like without replacing your rental system?
The shortest honest version: identity, handover, rules, exceptions.
Put a code on the items that leak, starting with one depot and one route family. Scan at each handover rather than at the paperwork, so custody and time are recorded when the item physically changes hands. Turn on circulation rules so the system knows what must return with what and by when. Then give every mismatch one owner, one deadline and the evidence attached, so the monthly argument becomes a two-minute lookup.
Rotion is built as that control layer: asset-level accountability with enforceable circulation rules across partners, locations and flows, hardware-agnostic across QR, RFID and barcodes, and integrated with the systems already in the building including SAP, Odoo and other ERPs (rotion.eu, checked 2026-08-19). We do not want your hire desk, your rate matrix or your invoicing, which is precisely why the first purchase can be a depot decision rather than a board decision.
Our proof today is a multi-party loop of the same shape rather than a rental fleet: 106,312 packages in circulation across six retailers over a nine-month pilot, with a sub-ten-second return experience at the point of drop-off (verified internally, 2026-08-24). If you want a rental reference, we do not have one yet, and you should ask every vendor on your shortlist for one that matches your asset mix.
Frequently asked questions
Is Infobric a rental ERP or a tracking product? Both, in different products. Onlet and Hyrma are rental business systems covering contracts, pricing and invoicing, while Machines is the machine-data platform. Which capability sits in which product, and how they exchange data, is worth mapping early, because the rental line was built from three acquisitions completed in early 2023.
Do I have to choose between a rental ERP and an asset-level control layer? No. They answer different questions. Keep the system that runs your commercial process, and add the layer that gives each item an identity and each handover a record. The failure mode is buying a second system of record and calling it visibility.
What about small tools and consumables that are not worth tracking individually? Track by identity where a unit is worth chasing and by batch where it is not. The line usually sits lower than teams expect, because the cost of an unresolved item is the dispute plus the replacement plus the stock-out, not just the replacement.
Does any of this help with compliance reporting? For construction plant, not yet in any way worth buying for. PPWR covers packaging, and the digital passport route for construction products runs through the revised Construction Products Regulation, with an indicative Q2 2027 milestone for the delegated act. Treat rental asset tracking as a loss and utilization decision in 2026.
We rent to our own projects. Does the same thing apply? More so. Internal transfers have no commercial event to mark them, so kit moves between sites with nothing recorded and the write-off lands centrally. Asset-level custody gives each project what it actually held, for exactly as long as it held it.
Bring one disputed off-hire to a 30-minute call. We will walk it line by line: what identity each item would carry, what the scan history would show, and what the conversation with that customer looks like afterwards. Book a demo.
