Fair Supply Alternatives

5 of 13 products that share a software category or a capability term with Fair Supply, matched on what their records document.

Alternative products to investigate

Products whose records share the most documented attributes with Fair Supply: Exiger, Informed 365, IntegrityNext, iPRO and osapiens HUB (alphabetical, not a ranking).

Fair Supply record checked 14 October 2026. Sources and limitations in the Fair Supply profile · How candidates are matched · Already using Fair Supply? What to check before switching

Fair Supply's own record: categories, offline status, pricing and trial

Software categories: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Offline filter: Not yet classified. Pricing: Fair Supply has no verified published paid amount recorded (model: “Quote-based”). Trial: trial status not established.

Exiger
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Fair Supply
Why listed: Categories shared with Fair Supply: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Fair Supply: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Fair Supply's “Supplier due diligence and remediation tracking” and Exiger's “Third-party due diligence workflow”; Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring” and Exiger's “Nth-tier supplier identification and risk scoring”. Pricing: Exiger and Fair Supply have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Exiger's record: “UFLPA-specific forced labour mapping” and “Product-level modern slavery data and integrations”.
Against Fair Supply: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Exiger, “Third-party onboarding and continuous monitoring” and “Transshipment and trade-origin detection”; Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail”. Access, security and record controls: Exiger, “Security certifications” (documented); Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” (documented) and “Information security certification” (documented).
Informed 365
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Fair Supply
Why listed: Categories shared with Fair Supply: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Fair Supply: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Fair Supply's “Modern slavery risk assessment” and Informed 365's “Modern slavery supplier assessment”; Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring” and Informed 365's “Supplier risk scoring”. Pricing: Informed 365 and Fair Supply have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Informed 365's record: “Data integration and evidence upload” and “Emissions module (Scope 1-3)”.
Against Fair Supply: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail”. Access, security and record controls: Informed 365, “Security and certification statements” (unverified); Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” (documented) and “Information security certification” (documented).
IntegrityNext
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Fair Supply
Why listed: Categories shared with Fair Supply: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Fair Supply: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Fair Supply's “Supplier due diligence and remediation tracking” and IntegrityNext's “Supply chain due diligence”; Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring” and IntegrityNext's “Multilingual supplier questionnaires and corrective actions”. Pricing: IntegrityNext and Fair Supply have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in IntegrityNext's record: “Product-based supply chain mapping”.
Against Fair Supply: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: IntegrityNext, “Forced labour screening and monitoring” and “LkSG and Norwegian Transparency Act support” (2 of 3); Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” and “Information security certification”. Pricing model: IntegrityNext, “Quote-based; EUDR Starter at a fixed annual price”; Fair Supply, “Quote-based”. Access, security and record controls: IntegrityNext, “Integrations and platform hosting” (documented); Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” (documented) and “Information security certification” (documented).
iPRO
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Fair Supply
Why listed: Categories shared with Fair Supply: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Fair Supply: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Fair Supply's “Modern slavery risk assessment” and iPRO's “Modern slavery assessment tool”; Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring” and iPRO's “Questionnaire-based assessment of organisation and suppliers”. Pricing: iPRO and Fair Supply have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in iPRO's record (2 of 3 capabilities): “Statement support by jurisdiction” and “Supplier risk profiles and draft statement”.
Against Fair Supply: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail”. Access, security and record controls: iPRO, “Information security certification” (documented); Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail” (documented) and “Information security certification” (documented).
osapiens HUB
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence and Supplier Due Diligence
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Fair Supply
Why listed: Categories shared with Fair Supply: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Fair Supply: Supplier Due Diligence. Capability names sharing a term: Fair Supply's “Supplier due diligence and remediation tracking” and osapiens HUB's “EUDR due diligence”; Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring” and osapiens HUB's “Supplier questionnaires and risk”. Pricing: osapiens HUB and Fair Supply have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Offline filter: osapiens HUB, documented offline workflow; Fair Supply, not yet classified. Software categories assigned to osapiens HUB only: Carbon Accounting. Conditional in osapiens HUB's record (2 of 5 capabilities): “Product carbon footprints” and “Reporting and disclosure preparation”.
Against Fair Supply: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: osapiens HUB, “Corporate carbon data collection”; Fair Supply, “Information security certification”. Pricing model: osapiens HUB, “Contact vendor”; Fair Supply, “Quote-based”.

Check the same evidence-led view from each candidate's starting point; its matched set may differ because the documented record differs.

Exiger alternatives Informed 365 alternatives IntegrityNext alternatives iPRO alternatives osapiens HUB alternatives

8 more not listed. Browse the Supply Chain Due Diligence category.

Already using Fair Supply? What its record leaves open

Limitations the Fair Supply profile records:

Deep-tier results are modelled; confirm which are supplier-verified
Pricing is not published

Available only under stated conditions or not documented (checked 14 October 2026): Modelled multi-tier risk from names and spend. Check each against the contract you hold.

Listed candidates that document a capability with a related name (confirm the scope in a demo):

“Modelled multi-tier risk from names and spend”: Exiger's “Nth-tier supplier identification and risk scoring”.

Fair Supply evaluation checks, for every candidate

Modelled versus supplier-confirmed tiers: Ask for a sample record showing how a deep-tier result is labelled when it comes from the MRIO model rather than from a supplier response. Retain an export showing both states side by side. The assessment page does not distinguish them. Source
Minimum inputs and data preparation: The FAQ page states that supplier name and spend are enough to begin. Load a representative spend file, including duplicates and subsidiaries, and record how many suppliers are matched, unmatched or classified by sector only. Source
Questionnaire design and scoring logic: The FAQ page describes binary, automatically scored SAQs. Ask for the question set and scoring rules for your supplier types, and test whether a supplier answer can be challenged by a cited external issue in the same record. Source
Audit trail and framework versioning: The page states that assessments and decisions are retained with timestamps and framework versions. Change a decision, then export the history and check that the prior state, user and date remain visible. Source
Reporting jurisdictions and statement content: Map each regime you report under to the outputs listed on the reporting page. Request a draft statement section built from test data and check which sentences are generated and which need manual authoring. Source
Plan structure, security evidence and scope: The pricing page names Foundational, Professional, Enterprise and Custom plans without prices; onboarding, regular check-ins and support are the only inclusions it lists. Obtain the plan contents in writing, and request the ISO 27001 certificate scope. Confirm whether emissions, biodiversity and advisory work are priced separately. Source
Shared supplier questionnaires: The due diligence page says suppliers can share a completed questionnaire across Fair Supply customers at no cost to them. Ask how a shared response is dated and refreshed, and whether you can require a fresh one. Source

Leaving Fair Supply: what to plan for

Questionnaire responses that suppliers chose to share across customers may be held on the platform rather than in your files. Before giving notice, ask whether the responses you hold can be exported with their dates, and plan for suppliers being asked to answer again in the successor tool, since a response you cannot carry over has to be collected a second time.
Treat the assessment history as evidence you may need after the contract ends. The record describes decisions kept with a timestamp and a framework version, so run the export test while access still exists: change one decision, export the history, and check that the earlier state, the user and the date survive in the file you would keep.
Results for deep tiers come from a model, and the record says the page does not separate modelled from confirmed results. Whatever statement text relied on a deep-tier finding may not be reproducible by a successor from the same inputs unless you keep both states, so retain an export that shows them side by side before leaving.
Find out what the contract actually covers before deciding what leaving ends. The product scope puts emissions, biodiversity and advisory work outside the modern slavery module, and the pricing page lists only onboarding, regular check-ins and support as inclusions. Exit assistance is not among them, so ask in writing whether export help is included or priced.

Who may have reason to stay with Fair Supply

A reporting team that files under the Australian statute has a documented reason to stay. The reporting page lists statement support for that Act, and the regimes named across the reviewed pages are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the EU. Test each regime you report under on the candidate separately.
The baseline needs no supplier survey, which matters to a team that holds a spend file but no supplier contacts yet. The record states a limit: a model built from spend and sector estimates exposure and does not establish conditions at a named supplier.
Suppliers may already have completed variant questionnaires. The record mentions versions for smaller suppliers, labour hire and offshore suppliers, so a programme that has issued those has an installed base of answers. Moving means deciding whether each variant is rebuilt, whether suppliers are asked again, and who explains the change to them.
A security review already completed on this product may have to be repeated for a replacement. The vendor names an information-security certification, but the record says the certificate itself was not reviewed, so ask whether the earlier review examined the certificate scope and the latest test summary rather than the web statement.

What to test in a trial of a replacement for Fair Supply

Load one spend file into the candidate and the current tool and compare the match counts line by line. Include duplicate names and subsidiaries, and note which suppliers end up without a match or classified by sector only, because a candidate that matches fewer names may be working from a smaller base even when its output looks complete.
Plant a contradiction on purpose. Give a supplier a clean questionnaire answer, then check whether the candidate can attach a cited external issue to the same record and show both side by side, rather than holding the two in separate screens. The record poses this as a question for this product and states no answer.
Ask the candidate how a response given to another customer reaches you. Request a record that shows when the supplier completed the questionnaire, what refresh cycle applies, and whether you can require a fresh response for one supplier without affecting the others.
Take a draft statement section built from test data and mark each sentence as generated by the tool or written by hand. Then follow one figure back to the assessment record that produced it. The count of hand-written sentences shows the drafting workload your team keeps with that tool.

Conditions and sources in the Fair Supply profile · Recorded commercial terms