Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    All comparisons
    Content date: · Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios · No individual check logged· AI use
    Carbon accounting · Guide revised September 2026

    Sweep vs Greenly: Scope, limits and demo questions

    Side-by-side comparison

    Sweep and Greenly: pricing, evaluation starting point, scope, what to verify and offline scope. Select a row label to show its full text.
    AttributeSweepGreenly
    No amount on record; request quote
    ESG & Sustainability
    Validate user roles, sites and scale against your proposed deployment.
    Confirm hosting, support languages and contractual coverage for your region.
    See the linked profile's capability evidence
    See the linked profile's unresolved questions
    Not yet classified

    Which requirements should drive the decision?

    Editorial interpretation of the linked vendor documentation, checked . These priorities and demo tasks are recommendations; no comparative product test was performed.

    Consider Sweep when…

    • You need to evaluate supplier participation and how estimates are replaced by supplier-specific data.
    • The buying team wants to test the connection between procurement inputs, contributors and emissions calculations.
    Published scope

    Sweep describes collection from procurement data and supplier submissions, with several calculation methods and accounts for surveyed suppliers.

    Sources: listed under Vendor sources.

    Consider Greenly when…

    • Your first challenge is resolving transaction-to-supplier attribution and establishing a repeatable collection process.
    • You want to compare the software tasks and expert support included in a named package.
    Published scope

    Greenly's help guide describes matching suppliers to activity and accounting data, including manual review of ambiguous matches. Its pricing page separates packages and lists API integration, SSO and additional entities as optional items.

    Sources: listed under Vendor sources.

    Run these three tasks in both demos

    1. Import a sample with a duplicate supplier, an ambiguous name and a missing activity unit.

      Acceptance evidence: Show exceptions and reviewer decisions; do not treat an automatic match as verified without inspection.

    2. Replace a spend-based estimate with a supplier-provided value for the same activity.

      Acceptance evidence: Trace the source, method, factor version and change to the consolidated figure without double counting.

    3. Ask a second entity to correct a submission, then export the approved result and supporting evidence.

      Acceptance evidence: Identify who approved the change and what a reviewer can reconstruct outside the platform.

    Keep the decision open if…

    Keep either candidate pending if a required calculation cannot be traced, supplier engagement belongs to an unquoted package, or the required entity permissions and exports remain untested. Reporting software alone does not establish compliance or assurance.

    Align the proposals

    State reporting entities, data sources, supplier participants, calculation scope, integration work and expected expert support. Ask which work the buyer must perform and what recurring charges apply after the first assessment.

    See a filled-in requirement, quote and pilot decision →

    Where the two scopes differ

    The guide above compares how supplier data becomes a reviewed record. The records add that the two vendors bound scope differently. Sweep's record describes a contracted platform of carbon, supplier, reporting and reduction modules, with a narrower Starter workflow and free supplier accounts to be judged as separate scopes. Greenly's record names its core as a corporate greenhouse gas assessment plus supplier engagement, with life cycle assessment, ESG data collection, consulting, API and single sign-on shown separately or as options.

    Reporting is where they differ most. Sweep documents mappings to a long list of frameworks, approval and comment workflows, source lineage and auditor access, and states that these prepare for assurance without guaranteeing it. Greenly's record describes a handoff from a finalised assessment to an ESG data-collection campaign that mainly covers quantitative datapoints, with a separate ESG entitlement to be confirmed, and a Workiva route that depends on a configured recipe.

    Two cautions are specific to each. Greenly's record says an early estimate from spend is less precise than activity data and that emission-source choices become locked once confirmed. Sweep's record points to emission-factor versions, estimation methods and recalculation rules that the buyer must approve. Neither record establishes offline use or a public subscription amount.

    Sweep: status on record

    • Trial: No free trial established.
    • Offline: Not yet classified.
    • Pricing: No amount on record; request quote.
    • Profile record checked 2 October 2026.

    Greenly: status on record

    • Trial: No free trial established.
    • Offline: Not yet classified.
    • Pricing: No amount on record; request quote.
    • Profile record checked 11 October 2026.

    When each is the safer first demo

    Start with Sweep when

    Sweep is the safer first demo when several legal entities report on a repeating cycle and the questions are about approvals, factor versions and who signs off a figure. Use your real entity structure in the demo, and ask for a factor change to be made and the effect on a past period shown.

    Start with Greenly when

    Greenly is the safer first demo when the first job is an initial inventory from accounting data and cleaning up supplier attribution. Ask to see an early spend-based result being replaced by activity data, and ask what remains editable after the module choices are confirmed.

    A two-week evaluation plan

    Ask Sweep

    • Separate Starter, the broader modules, integrations, the supplier programme, services and exports in the quote.
    • Ask which connectors you need, in which direction and how often, and who is responsible for failed records.

    Ask Greenly

    • Name the package among the three the pricing page lists and itemise optional API, single sign-on and additional entities.
    • Confirm survey entitlement, since the help article marks survey sending as available on one package only.

    Week 1, the inventory. Load the same small sample of transactions and activity data into each, and trace three figures from result back to source, factor and method. Neither record establishes a free trial, so ask for a vendor-run workspace on the package you would buy. Record which results are estimates, and which require your approval before they count.

    Week 2, suppliers and reporting. Run a supplier survey end to end, including a supplier who answers late or wrongly, and see how the data is validated and approved. Then produce one disclosure output, and ask what controls exist between the figure and the report. If you need site-level or low-connectivity collection, test it explicitly, because both records say offline operation was not established.

    What the records do not establish

    Sweep

    • A buyer subscription amount, or an unrestricted trial.
    • That a framework mapping equals compliance, or that audit-ready language gives an assurance opinion.
    • Offline collection or approval.

    Greenly

    • A subscription amount for any listed package.
    • That an early spend-based estimate is audit-ready, or that preset targets equal an externally validated target.
    • Offline capture, calculation or review.

    Neither product

    • Which product produces a lower footprint or faster reporting: no performance measure was reviewed.
    • Delivery time and effort for connectors and historical recalculation.

    Written from the profile records and the decision guide above, not from a hands-on test. Where a record is silent, the page says so instead of filling the gap.

    Sweep vs Greenly | FAQ

    Is one of these products automatically cheaper or more accurate?
    No comparable scoped cost or accuracy result is established here. Use the same input data and reporting boundaries, investigate exceptions and obtain itemised proposals before making either comparison.
    Which product is cheaper?
    Comparable total cost has not been established. Request the same applications, users, sites, configuration, migration, integrations and support period from both vendors. Published entry pricing is subject to the plan conditions shown in each profile.
    How should I test interrupted data collection?
    Interrupt a supplier upload or contributor submission in a demonstration, then retry it. Check receipt, duplicates, approval status and recovery ownership. Spreadsheet import does not by itself establish an offline application.
    How should I decide between these products?
    Set acceptance criteria for your actual workflow. Complete the same demo, record observed results separately from vendor statements and resolve remaining questions in a scoped pilot. The linked profiles show the sources and review status for each product.

    Vendor sources and next steps

    Sweep12 sources, profile checked 2 October 2026, decision guide checked 20 September 2026
    Greenly15 sources, profile checked 11 October 2026, decision guide checked 20 September 2026
    Record the same demo tasks in the scorecard →

    Related comparisons

    Need a personalised shortlist?

    Answer the matching questionnaire to explore up to 5 platforms based on your industry, size and processes, then verify the requirements with each vendor.

    Get matched