osapiens HUB vs Persefoni: Scope, limits and demo questions

The two records describe different shapes of purchase. osapiens HUB is presented as a shared data foundation under separately selected suites: Carbon Management, Disclosures & Reporting, Supplier Intelligence, and Audit & Quality Assurance. The record also lists a separate EUDR offering, a CBAM solution and an EU Taxonomy solution, and warns that a shared platform does not mean one inclusive licence. Persefoni is described as an organisational carbon inventory with reporting on top, sold on two plans, a permanent free Pro plan and an Advanced plan quoted on request. The first record asks which suites you are buying; the second asks which plan, and which features are paid additions to it.

On the carbon side both documents describe Scope 1, 2 and 3 work, and the differences are in the surrounding controls. The osapiens record lists corporate data collection with contributor input and API import, a separately activated product footprint module, and emission-database entitlements that vary by module, including ecoinvent. The Persefoni record stresses calculation detail: formula, conversion and factor visibility, review and audit controls, and report locking. It also says several of those controls carry coming-soon or forthcoming labels on official pages, so the two Persefoni pages disagree about what is live. Supplier data is the same kind of question: osapiens documents questionnaires, evidence and requalification workflows within Supplier Intelligence, while Persefoni separates responding to requests in Pro from sending them in Advanced and keeps a coming-soon label on the supplier page.

Reporting and field work diverge most. osapiens records an owner, source document, timestamp and revision history for each reporting data point, and its audit suite documents offline mobile checklists with later synchronisation. Persefoni documents a report builder with attachments, activity tracking and locking, plan-specific exports, and an AI feature that flags statistical anomalies, which the record says should be treated as a prompt for review. No offline workflow is established for Persefoni, and the osapiens record says offline audit does not extend to carbon calculation or disclosure editing. Neither record shows a subscription price for the full programme: osapiens had no pricing page when checked, and Persefoni published only its free entry plan.