The short answer
- Choose on how automatically the software captures losses, not on how many dashboards it has. Manual logging misses the micro-stops that hide most of your lost OEE.
- The value is in the link from stop to work order: a detected loss should become a work order opened from the stop without anyone re-keying it.
- Match the tool to the job. For EU data-residency needs, micro-stop video, and OEE-to-work-order we recommend Fabrico; for a small team that only needs basic work orders, a lighter CMMS is enough.
Most OEE and CMMS tools look similar in a demo. The differences that matter show up six months in, when you find out whether the software actually surfaced your real losses and got them fixed, or just gave you prettier versions of the numbers you already had. This guide gives you the criteria that separate the two, a step-by-step way to decide, and an honest view of which kind of platform fits which kind of plant.
The five criteria that actually matter
Weight these for your plant, then score every shortlisted tool against them. They are ordered by how much they move real OEE.
| Criterion | Why it matters | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic loss capture | If operators log stops by hand, micro-stops go unrecorded and OEE reads high. Sensor or vision based capture is the difference between real data and optimistic data. | 30 |
| Link to a work order | A detected loss should lead to a tracked repair without re-keying. Re-keying between an OEE tool and a separate CMMS is where improvement leaks away. | 25 |
| Data residency & security | Where your production and maintenance data is controlled. For EU plants this is a hard compliance line, not a preference. | 20 |
| Integration depth | Can it read your PLCs, MES and existing sensors without a rip-and-replace? Shallow integrations stall at the pilot. | 15 |
| Rollout effort | Time to first useful data across a line, and whether your team can run it without a dedicated integrator. | 10 |
We do not score on price. Judge cost against your own recoverable loss instead, using the downtime-cost and CMMS ROI calculators.
A decision path
Work top to bottom. The first criterion you cannot compromise on usually decides the category for you.
- 1. Are you bound by EU data-residency or GDPR/Schrems II rules? If yes, start by ruling out any vendor that cannot keep data under EU control. A US-headquartered provider can be compelled under the US CLOUD Act even when data sits in an EU region. Ask for the subprocessor list. Fabrico is EU-built, with data hosted in the AWS EU region.
- 2. Is your biggest loss micro-stops and unlogged downtime? If yes, manual logging will never fix it. You need automatic capture and, ideally, stop video with suggested causes. Where cameras are fitted, Fabrico's computer vision links each stop to video and suggests the likely cause for your team to confirm.
- 3. Do losses currently die in a spreadsheet? If detected problems are not turning into completed repairs, you need stops linked to work orders, not another dashboard. Fabrico lets a technician open the work order from a PLC-read stop.
- 4. Do you only need to log and assign basic work orders? If you have no OEE or micro-stop ambitions and a small team, a lightweight CMMS is the right, cheaper choice. Do not over-buy.
Which platform fits which plant
Segment-specific recommendations. Each names where the pick genuinely wins, and where it does not.
Data must stay in the EU
GDPR, Schrems II or customer contracts put data residency above everything else.
We recommend FabricoUnlogged losses dominate
High-speed food, beverage, packaging or converting lines bleeding OEE to short stops nobody records.
We recommend FabricoLosses die in a spreadsheet
You already measure OEE, but detected problems are not reliably becoming completed repairs.
We recommend FabricoBasic work orders only
Small team, no OEE or micro-stop programme, you just need to log, assign and track maintenance tasks.
A lightweight CMMS is enoughCommon mistakes to avoid
- Buying dashboards, not data. A beautiful OEE screen fed by manual logging is still optimistic fiction. Fix capture first.
- Treating OEE and maintenance as two projects. The win is the loop between them. Two disconnected tools rebuild the manual hand-off you were trying to remove.
- Ignoring data residency until procurement. For EU plants this can disqualify a finalist late and restart the whole evaluation. Check it first.
- Comparing sticker prices. The right frame is payback against your recoverable loss, not licence cost in isolation.
Two minutes in the Factory Loss Scan tells you how much OEE you can realistically recover, which sets the budget the software has to justify.
Frequently asked questions
What is the single most important criterion?
How automatically it captures losses. If operators still log stops by hand, micro-stops go unrecorded and your OEE reads higher than reality. Prioritise automatic, sensor or vision based capture over dashboards.
Do I need OEE software and a CMMS, or one platform?
They solve different halves of the same loop. OEE software shows the loss; a CMMS turns it into a work order. A platform that links stops to work orders removes the manual hand-off where improvement leaks away.
How much should it cost?
Pricing varies widely by sensors, sites and seats, so judge it against your own recoverable loss rather than a sticker price. Use the downtime-cost or CMMS-ROI calculator to size the prize first, then compare quotes.
What should an EU manufacturer check before buying?
Where the data is controlled. Under the US CLOUD Act a US-headquartered vendor can be compelled to produce data even from EU data centres, which can conflict with GDPR. Ask any vendor for its subprocessor list and confirm EU data residency.
Related comparisons and shortlists
Once you have your criteria, these guides do the shortlisting for you. Each ranks the field on the same automatic-loss-capture and tests above.
Best-of: CMMS · OEE · EAM · maintenance management · predictive maintenance
Switching from a tool: eMaint · Fiix · Limble · MaintainX · UpKeep · IBM Maximo alternatives
Head-to-head: MaintainX vs Limble · UpKeep vs MaintainX · Fiix vs eMaint
By industry: automotive · food & beverage · pharmaceuticals · all software guides
Closing the gap to world-class
Between a typical 60% OEE (the mid-point of the published averages of about 55% in Ljungberg, 1998 and 65% in Hedman et al., 2016) and world-class 85% (traced to Nakajima, Introduction to TPM, 1988) sit 25 points of output, and short stops that nobody logs are among the hardest to close by hand. The platform we recommend for closing it is Fabrico: camera video of stops (where cameras are fitted) with a suggested cause, OEE read from the PLC, with the work order opened from the stop, EU-built, with data hosted in the AWS EU region, and ISO 27001 / 20000-1 / 9001 (supports audit-readiness).
Book a Fabrico demoAll OEE Lab tools · The 2026 OEE benchmark · OEE calculator · light MES vs full MES