Updated 3 October 2026
Original data · records as of 3 October 2026QHSE Software Capability Map 2026: what the 209 researched profiles document
Each of the 209 software profiles on this site carries a list of capability statements, and each statement has a documentation status. This page counts them: 2,400 statements in all, sorted into 10 capability families and grouped by software category. The map shows how many profiles in each category have a documented or conditional statement in each family. It describes what the records state, not how well any product works, and it ranks no product.
Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn · Content date: 3 October 2026
The map: capability families by software category
Rows are the 12 software categories with at least 5 profiles, plus a first row for all 209 profiles. The 29 profiles in the other 12 categories are included in the first row only. Each cell reads “share (profiles with a documented or conditional statement in the family / profiles in the category)”. A cell of 0% means no statement title in that category's records matched the family's keywords. It does not mean the products lack the function.
- 0%: no profile in the category
- 1 to 33%
- 34 to 66%
- 67 to 100%
Text version of the capability map
- Software category: All profiles (n = 209)
- Offline capture: 55% (115/209) (34 to 66%); Workflow and approvals: 48% (100/209) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 61% (127/209) (34 to 66%); API and integrations: 65% (135/209) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 37% (77/209) (34 to 66%); Audit trail: 13% (28/209) (1 to 33%); Document control: 14% (29/209) (1 to 33%); Supplier or contractor access: 43% (90/209) (34 to 66%); ESG data collection: 17% (35/209) (1 to 33%); Security and single sign-on: 39% (82/209) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: EHS Management (n = 43)
- Offline capture: 77% (33/43) (67 to 100%); Workflow and approvals: 53% (23/43) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 60% (26/43) (34 to 66%); API and integrations: 65% (28/43) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 49% (21/43) (34 to 66%); Audit trail: 7% (3/43) (1 to 33%); Document control: 21% (9/43) (1 to 33%); Supplier or contractor access: 44% (19/43) (34 to 66%); ESG data collection: 12% (5/43) (1 to 33%); Security and single sign-on: 42% (18/43) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: ESG & Sustainability (n = 30)
- Offline capture: 10% (3/30) (1 to 33%); Workflow and approvals: 33% (10/30) (1 to 33%); Reporting and dashboards: 67% (20/30) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 67% (20/30) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 7% (2/30) (1 to 33%); Audit trail: 23% (7/30) (1 to 33%); Document control: 0% (0/30) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 73% (22/30) (67 to 100%); ESG data collection: 57% (17/30) (34 to 66%); Security and single sign-on: 47% (14/30) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: Quality Management (n = 22)
- Offline capture: 32% (7/22) (1 to 33%); Workflow and approvals: 64% (14/22) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 23% (5/22) (1 to 33%); API and integrations: 59% (13/22) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 14% (3/22) (1 to 33%); Audit trail: 23% (5/22) (1 to 33%); Document control: 64% (14/22) (34 to 66%); Supplier or contractor access: 68% (15/22) (67 to 100%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/22) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 45% (10/22) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: QHSE Management (n = 16)
- Offline capture: 88% (14/16) (67 to 100%); Workflow and approvals: 56% (9/16) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 38% (6/16) (34 to 66%); API and integrations: 44% (7/16) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 69% (11/16) (67 to 100%); Audit trail: 0% (0/16) (0%: no profile in the category); Document control: 31% (5/16) (1 to 33%); Supplier or contractor access: 69% (11/16) (67 to 100%); ESG data collection: 44% (7/16) (34 to 66%); Security and single sign-on: 25% (4/16) (1 to 33%).
- Software category: Audits & Inspections (n = 15)
- Offline capture: 100% (15/15) (67 to 100%); Workflow and approvals: 53% (8/15) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 80% (12/15) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 87% (13/15) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 40% (6/15) (34 to 66%); Audit trail: 13% (2/15) (1 to 33%); Document control: 7% (1/15) (1 to 33%); Supplier or contractor access: 7% (1/15) (1 to 33%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/15) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 33% (5/15) (1 to 33%).
- Software category: Safety Management (n = 12)
- Offline capture: 50% (6/12) (34 to 66%); Workflow and approvals: 25% (3/12) (1 to 33%); Reporting and dashboards: 67% (8/12) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 83% (10/12) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 33% (4/12) (1 to 33%); Audit trail: 8% (1/12) (1 to 33%); Document control: 0% (0/12) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 58% (7/12) (34 to 66%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/12) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 75% (9/12) (67 to 100%).
- Software category: Occupational Health (n = 11)
- Offline capture: 18% (2/11) (1 to 33%); Workflow and approvals: 45% (5/11) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 82% (9/11) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 55% (6/11) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 27% (3/11) (1 to 33%); Audit trail: 18% (2/11) (1 to 33%); Document control: 0% (0/11) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 18% (2/11) (1 to 33%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/11) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 36% (4/11) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: Asset Management (n = 7)
- Offline capture: 86% (6/7) (67 to 100%); Workflow and approvals: 43% (3/7) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 100% (7/7) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 71% (5/7) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 57% (4/7) (34 to 66%); Audit trail: 29% (2/7) (1 to 33%); Document control: 0% (0/7) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 14% (1/7) (1 to 33%); ESG data collection: 14% (1/7) (1 to 33%); Security and single sign-on: 43% (3/7) (34 to 66%).
- Software category: Construction Safety (n = 7)
- Offline capture: 100% (7/7) (67 to 100%); Workflow and approvals: 43% (3/7) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 57% (4/7) (34 to 66%); API and integrations: 86% (6/7) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 71% (5/7) (67 to 100%); Audit trail: 0% (0/7) (0%: no profile in the category); Document control: 0% (0/7) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 29% (2/7) (1 to 33%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/7) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 29% (2/7) (1 to 33%).
- Software category: Emergency Management (n = 6)
- Offline capture: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Workflow and approvals: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 33% (2/6) (1 to 33%); API and integrations: 67% (4/6) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Audit trail: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); Document control: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); ESG data collection: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 17% (1/6) (1 to 33%).
- Software category: Environmental Management (n = 6)
- Offline capture: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Workflow and approvals: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 83% (5/6) (67 to 100%); API and integrations: 50% (3/6) (34 to 66%); Mobile app: 33% (2/6) (1 to 33%); Audit trail: 33% (2/6) (1 to 33%); Document control: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 0% (0/6) (0%: no profile in the category); ESG data collection: 17% (1/6) (1 to 33%); Security and single sign-on: 33% (2/6) (1 to 33%).
- Software category: Chemical Management (n = 5)
- Offline capture: 60% (3/5) (34 to 66%); Workflow and approvals: 60% (3/5) (34 to 66%); Reporting and dashboards: 60% (3/5) (34 to 66%); API and integrations: 100% (5/5) (67 to 100%); Mobile app: 80% (4/5) (67 to 100%); Audit trail: 0% (0/5) (0%: no profile in the category); Document control: 0% (0/5) (0%: no profile in the category); Supplier or contractor access: 60% (3/5) (34 to 66%); ESG data collection: 0% (0/5) (0%: no profile in the category); Security and single sign-on: 40% (2/5) (34 to 66%).
What the categories mean
- 0%: no profile in the category: None of the category's profiles has a documented or conditional statement in this family.
- 1 to 33%: Between one profile and a third of the category's profiles.
- 34 to 66%: More than a third and up to two thirds of the category's profiles.
- 67 to 100%: More than two thirds of the category's profiles.
Categories with fewer than ten profiles give coarse shares: one profile moves a cell by 10 to 20 points. The family totals for all profiles are in the table below.
| Capability family | Documented or conditional | With a documented statement | Conditional statements only | Unverified or unsupported only | No matching statement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offline capture | 115 (55%) | 40 | 75 | 30 | 64 |
| Workflow and approvals | 100 (48%) | 60 | 40 | 2 | 107 |
| Reporting and dashboards | 127 (61%) | 81 | 46 | 0 | 82 |
| API and integrations | 135 (65%) | 19 | 116 | 11 | 63 |
| Mobile app | 77 (37%) | 32 | 45 | 4 | 128 |
| Audit trail | 28 (13%) | 17 | 11 | 0 | 181 |
| Document control | 29 (14%) | 21 | 8 | 0 | 180 |
| Supplier or contractor access | 90 (43%) | 57 | 33 | 1 | 118 |
| ESG data collection | 35 (17%) | 19 | 16 | 2 | 172 |
| Security and single sign-on | 82 (39%) | 30 | 52 | 6 | 121 |
Each profile is counted once per family, at its strongest status: documented first, then conditional, then unverified or unsupported. The first column is the second plus the third column; with the last two columns it adds up to 209.
Documented, conditional and unverified statements
The first chart counts every capability statement by status, with no grouping into families. The next three show, for each of the 12 main categories, what share of that category's statements carries each status. The shares use the number of statements as the base, so a category with long records weighs more in its own bar than a category with short ones.
Text version of the status chart
- Documented: 1,264 (53%).
- Conditional: 1,028 (43%).
- Unverified: 103 (4%).
- Unsupported: 5 (1%).
Text version of the documented chart
- All profiles: 53%. n = 2,400 statements. Highlighted in the chart.
- EHS Management: 57%. n = 490 statements.
- ESG & Sustainability: 52%. n = 293 statements.
- Quality Management: 60%. n = 259 statements.
- QHSE Management: 56%. n = 233 statements.
- Audits & Inspections: 46%. n = 171 statements.
- Safety Management: 66%. n = 119 statements.
- Occupational Health: 50%. n = 145 statements.
- Asset Management: 41%. n = 81 statements.
- Construction Safety: 45%. n = 76 statements.
- Emergency Management: 33%. n = 63 statements.
- Environmental Management: 43%. n = 72 statements.
- Chemical Management: 47%. n = 55 statements.
Text version of the conditional chart
- All profiles: 43%. n = 2,400 statements. Highlighted in the chart.
- EHS Management: 40%. n = 490 statements.
- ESG & Sustainability: 45%. n = 293 statements.
- Quality Management: 37%. n = 259 statements.
- QHSE Management: 30%. n = 233 statements.
- Audits & Inspections: 52%. n = 171 statements.
- Safety Management: 33%. n = 119 statements.
- Occupational Health: 45%. n = 145 statements.
- Asset Management: 58%. n = 81 statements.
- Construction Safety: 50%. n = 76 statements.
- Emergency Management: 63%. n = 63 statements.
- Environmental Management: 54%. n = 72 statements.
- Chemical Management: 49%. n = 55 statements.
Text version of the unverified chart
- All profiles: 4%. n = 2,400 statements. Highlighted in the chart.
- EHS Management: 3%. n = 490 statements.
- ESG & Sustainability: 3%. n = 293 statements.
- Quality Management: 3%. n = 259 statements.
- QHSE Management: 14%. n = 233 statements.
- Audits & Inspections: 1%. n = 171 statements.
- Safety Management: 2%. n = 119 statements.
- Occupational Health: 6%. n = 145 statements.
- Asset Management: 1%. n = 81 statements.
- Construction Safety: 4%. n = 76 statements.
- Emergency Management: 3%. n = 63 statements.
- Environmental Management: 3%. n = 72 statements.
- Chemical Management: 4%. n = 55 statements.
| Software category | Profiles | Statements | Documented | Conditional | Unverified | Unsupported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All profiles | 209 | 2,400 | 1,264 (53%) | 1,028 (43%) | 103 (4%) | 5 (1%) |
| EHS Management | 43 | 490 | 279 (57%) | 195 (40%) | 16 (3%) | 0 (0%) |
| ESG & Sustainability | 30 | 293 | 152 (52%) | 132 (45%) | 8 (3%) | 1 (1%) |
| Quality Management | 22 | 259 | 155 (60%) | 95 (37%) | 8 (3%) | 1 (1%) |
| QHSE Management | 16 | 233 | 131 (56%) | 70 (30%) | 32 (14%) | 0 (0%) |
| Audits & Inspections | 15 | 171 | 79 (46%) | 89 (52%) | 2 (1%) | 1 (1%) |
| Safety Management | 12 | 119 | 78 (66%) | 39 (33%) | 2 (2%) | 0 (0%) |
| Occupational Health | 11 | 145 | 72 (50%) | 65 (45%) | 8 (6%) | 0 (0%) |
| Asset Management | 7 | 81 | 33 (41%) | 47 (58%) | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Construction Safety | 7 | 76 | 34 (45%) | 38 (50%) | 3 (4%) | 1 (1%) |
| Emergency Management | 6 | 63 | 21 (33%) | 40 (63%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) |
| Environmental Management | 6 | 72 | 31 (43%) | 39 (54%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) |
| Chemical Management | 5 | 55 | 26 (47%) | 27 (49%) | 2 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
| Other categories (12) | 29 | 343 | 173 (50%) | 152 (44%) | 17 (5%) | 1 (1%) |
What the counts show
Six readings of the figures above. They describe the records and make no comparison between products.
- 43% of the statements depend on a condition. Of 2,400 capability statements, 1,264 (53%) are documented without a stated dependency and 1,028 (43%) are conditional, which means the vendor's pages describe the capability but tie it to a plan, module, edition, region or set-up. 103 (4%) are unverified and 5 are unsupported. A buyer who reads a documented-or-conditional count as one number is combining two different levels of assurance.
- API and integrations and reporting and dashboards are the most common families; audit trail is the least common. API and integrations appears in 135 of 209 profiles (65%) and reporting and dashboards in 127 (61%). Audit trail appears in 28 (13%). The map counts titles. A record may describe the function inside a statement with a different title, and such a statement is not counted here.
- The share of conditional-only profiles differs by family. Of the 135 profiles with a documented or conditional API and integrations statement, 116 (86%) have only conditional ones. For document control the figure is 8 of 29 (28%). A conditional-only profile is one whose record attaches a plan, module, edition or set-up to every matching statement in the family.
- The most any profile reaches is 8 of the 10 families. The median profile has a documented or conditional statement in 4 of the 10 families. 71 profiles (34%) reach five or more, 0 reach all 10, and 5 match none. A short list is not a gap in the product: some records describe a narrow tool in depth rather than a suite in outline.
- Families follow the category. Offline capture is documented or conditional in 15 of 15 Audits & Inspections profiles (100%) and in 3 of 30 ESG & Sustainability profiles (10%). ESG data collection is present in 17 of 30 profiles in the ESG and sustainability category (57%) and in 18 of the other 179 (10%). Compare a product with the products of its own category, not with the all-profiles row.
- Unverified statements and the documented share differ by category. 73 of 209 profiles (35%) carry at least one unverified statement. Among the main categories the documented share of statements runs from 33% (Emergency Management, 63 statements) to 66% (Safety Management, 119), and the unverified share is highest in QHSE Management (14% of 233). These differences reflect how much each category's vendors publish and how deeply its records were researched, so they are not a quality measure.
Method: statuses, families and limits
What the four statuses mean on this site
- Documented: the vendor's own pages that the record cites describe the capability, and the record does not make it depend on a named plan, module, edition or set-up.
- Conditional: the capability is described, but the record states a condition that decides whether a buyer gets it, such as a plan or edition, a separate module, a region or a set-up the buyer must demonstrate.
- Unverified: the review could not establish the capability from the pages it read. Unverified is not a claim that the product lacks it.
- Unsupported: the vendor's documentation, or the review of it, states that the capability is not provided in the case described.
How a statement is assigned to a family
The statements are the capability rows of each profile's research record (2,400 rows in 209 records). A row belongs to a family when its title matches the family's keywords below and none of its exclusion words. Matching is on whole words in lower case; a trailing * allows any ending, so integrat* covers integration and integrations. Only the title is read, not the explanatory text, which makes the rule simple to repeat and the result approximate: a statement whose title does not use the keyword is not counted, and a title may match more than one family. Titles were read against the rules and the exclusion words were added where a keyword caught an unrelated statement, for instance the word “reporting” in incident-reporting titles.
| Family | Title contains any of | Unless it also contains |
|---|---|---|
| Offline capture | offline, off-line, disconnected, without connectivity, no signal, local use | No exclusions |
| Workflow and approvals | workflow*, approval*, approv*, routing, escalat*, sign-off, orchestration | No exclusions |
| Reporting and dashboards | dashboard*, analytic*, insight*, export*, kpi*, report*, scorecard*, benchmark*, disclosure* | incident, near-miss, accident, hazard, injury, observation*, issue, offline, qr, login-free, mobile, field, safety, ehs, osha, riddor, complaint, health and safety, anonymous, no-account, registration, event, public, confidential, reporter |
| API and integrations | api, apis, integration*, webhook*, connector*, connection*, erp, data exchange, data flows | No exclusions |
| Mobile app | mobile, app, apps, smartphone*, tablet*, ios, android, in-cab | builder, building, no-code, low-code, power platform |
| Audit trail | audit trail*, audit history, audit log*, audit logging, activity history, change history, change trail, edit history, version history, revision history, reason-for-change, immutable | No exclusions |
| Document control | document control, controlled document*, controlled-document*, controlled safety documents, document library, document management, document revision*, document lifecycle, document status, document versioning | No exclusions |
| Supplier or contractor access | supplier*, contractor*, subcontractor*, prequalification, visitor*, site access, site-access, third-party, worker access, induction*, orientation* | No exclusions |
| ESG data collection | esg, ghg, emission*, carbon, scope 1, scope 2, scope 3, sustainability, materiality, csrd, lca, net-zero | No exclusions |
| Security and single sign-on | single sign-on, sso, saml, security, hosting, encryption, iso 27001, soc 2, role-based access, role access, access control*, multifactor, mfa, data residency, data region | site, assistance, video |
Counting rules
- A profile counts toward a map cell when its strongest matching statement in the family is documented or conditional. Several statements in one family count once.
- The category of a profile is its primary software category in the directory. 29 profiles sit in categories with fewer than 5 profiles and appear only in the all-profiles row.
- Status shares use statements as the base; the map uses profiles as the base. The two are not interchangeable.
- Every profile is counted the same way. One profile in the set belongs to a commercial partner of this site, which is disclosed on the methodology page; it has no separate rule, weight or exclusion here, and no product is named in the findings.
Limits
- This is documentation review, not hands-on testing. A status records what the vendor's published pages say and what the review could confirm from them. Nobody here ran the product.
- A count of statements is not a measure of quality. A product with many statements may simply have been researched more deeply; a product with few may be a focused tool. Nothing here ranks, scores or recommends a product.
- The profiles are the researched set, not the market. The directory holds 209 profiles that were chosen and researched by the editor; it is not a census of vendors, and shares do not describe all QHSE software.
- Records change. The map was computed from records dated up to 3 October 2026. A profile re-researched later may change a cell; the CSVs are regenerated with the records.
How to cite and reuse this data
Two CSV files hold the data behind the page. The matrix file has one row per category and capability family (140 rows): profiles in the category, profiles with a documented or conditional statement, the share, and the split by strongest status. The per-profile file has one row per profile (209 rows): category, statement counts by status and the strongest status in each of the 10 families. Our compilation, rules and layout are available under CC BY 4.0. The underlying product facts belong to the vendors and their own pages.
When you quote a figure, state that it counts statements in research records and name the status. Say “135 of 209 profiles have a documented or conditional integration statement”, not “65% of products integrate”. Suggested citation: The QHSE Standard. (2026). QHSE software capability map 2026 (records as of 3 October 2026). https://qhsetech.com/qhse-software-capability-map-2026
Related: the 2026 report on vendor transparency, search demand by product, all datasets, methodology.