Let's compare Fiable and the alternatives

We assess contract value, workload, forward pipeline, and the financial capacity needed to deliver a project.


Alternative solutions only provide broad business or financial risk information, but they do not assess these construction‑specific factors that influence whether a vendor can perform.

‍How we achieve this:

• ‍We size financial capacity against the specific contract value being awarded.
• We factor in workload, pipeline, and current commitments to assess delivery capability.
• We collect project‑specific operational and financial information directly from vendors.

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• ‍Procurement teams may rely on risk data that doesn’t reflect contract or delivery conditions.
• Vendors may be approved based on generic business indicators rather than project suitability.
• Projects may be exposed to financial instability that broader tools cannot detect.

We evaluate whether a vendor can deliver the contract under real project conditions, not only how they’ve performed in the past.

‍How we achieve this:

• We factor current workload, resource capacity, and pipeline to gauge ability to take on new work.
• We model financial headroom against upcoming cash demands tied to the contract.
• We collect delivery‑relevant inputs (e.g., margin pressure, payment cycles, supply dependencies).

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• Past results are mistaken for present capacity to perform.
• Early delivery strain goes undetected until it impacts timelines.
• Awards go to vendors unable to sustain project pressures.

We compare vendors to peers within the same trade to surface construction‑specific risk signals.

‍How we achieve this:

• We map results to trade categories and benchmark against peer distributions.
• We track trade‑specific indicators (e.g., typical margin profiles, cash conversion norms).
• We highlight outliers relative to current conditions in each trade.

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• A vendor looks stable on paper but is materially weaker than peers in the same trade.
• Trade‑level collapse trends (e.g., concreters, formworkers) go unnoticed until failure hits your project.
• Project teams underestimate risk because benchmarks weren’t construction‑specific.

We align viability to the size, duration, and dependency of the specific contract and project.

‍How we achieve this:

• We size financial capacity and risk thresholds to the actual contract value and terms.
• We assess concentration risk across your projects and suppliers.
• We model scenario impacts (delays, variations, extended terms) on liquidity.

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• A vendor takes on a contract larger than they can financially support, leading to collapse mid‑delivery.
• A single vendor becomes a hidden point of failure across multiple active projects.
• Major project delays trigger liquidated damages, commercial disputes, and reputational fallout.

The analysis and our methodology is always industry-focused, taking into account real delivery risk signals.

How we achieve this:

• We ask for your contract details before making the vendor assessment, such as contract value and location
• We also analyse a vendor's sector, looking at any factors which may impact their business
• Part of the assesment outcomes also include a project capacity limits

‍Risks without Fiable:

• Variations, extended payment terms or sequencing pressures push a vendor into distress without warning.
• Project teams approve a vendor who looks fine generally, but it overstretched in your project's timing window.
• A vendor's financial position deteriorates because of another project, impacting yours unexpectedly.

We flag emerging stress before defaults or adverse filings, enabling action ahead of failure.

‍How we achieve this:

• We track directional changes in liquidity, margins, and working‑capital strain.
• We monitor shifts in workload, pipeline timing, and cash‑flow coverage.
• We generate alerts when indicators cross certain thresholds.

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• Issues only become visible once the vendor is already failing.
• No time to adjust plans or replace them before delays hit the project.
• Insolvency lands without warning, causing stoppages and re‑procurement costs.

We base assessments on verified management accounts and contract‑relevant financials, not only public credit records.

‍How we achieve this:

• We collect management accounts, cash‑flow statements, and tax information directly from vendors.
• We standardise and validate submissions to ensure comparability and integrity.
• We analyse liquidity, short‑term obligations, and cash coverage against the contract.

‍Risks without Fiable:‍

• Severe cash‑flow problems remain hidden because credit files lag months behind reality.
• Vendors “pass” a credit check but are weeks away from insolvency due to tax arrears, margin erosion, or delayed payments.
• Contractors learn of financial distress only when the vendor walks off the job or enters administration.