Choose a paid review ↗Dated capability and eligibility review
A planned head-to-head stopped at the eligibility gate.
TrueScope's existing fictional Johannesburg renovation was fixed as the evaluation reference. It was not run through Sentinel because the supplied ConstructIQ demo did not expose a construction quote-review workflow.
The identical reference
One fictional project, held constant.
The reference is the same synthetic renovation already used in TrueScope's public sample. It contains no customer identity, confidential quote or live contractor data.
Important:
The reference project was not uploaded into ConstructIQ/Sentinel. Its public surface did not expose the construction quote-assurance task required to start a fair run, and no records were created in the shared demo.
Observed result
No overall score. No invented parity.
TrueScope's column reports published fictional sample evidence. ConstructIQ/Sentinel's column reports only what was visible in the supplied public demo. “Not observed” is not a claim that a capability can never exist.
| Benchmark question | Locked reference | ConstructIQ / Sentinel | TrueScope Build |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the product accept the construction quote task? | Review one contractor quote and two supporting drawings before signature. | No comparable construction quote-review workflow was observed. The supplied domain identifies the product as Sentinel Command, an enterprise security-operations platform. | Yes. TrueScope is designed around construction quote intake, project context and package-specific review. |
| Does the stated total reconcile? | R895 000 including VAT; no arithmetic exception in the synthetic quote. | Not observed on the reviewed surface. | The published sample records that the subtotal, VAT and contract total reconcile. |
| What payment risk needs attention? | A 35% deposit is requested before a defined measurable milestone. | Not observed on the reviewed surface. | Flagged as a higher-risk finding, with a question asking what measurable value the deposit secures. |
| Which allowance lacks enough detail? | R142 000 of electrical and plumbing work is provisional and lacks quantities and product assumptions. | Not observed on the reviewed surface. | Flagged as a higher-risk allowance requiring written point, fixture and product-range assumptions. |
| What scope remains unclear? | Painting preparation, waste-removal frequency and final cleaning need definition. | Not observed on the reviewed surface. | Separated into plain-language findings, possible impact and questions to send to the contractor. |
| What usable decision output is visible? | A prioritised decision summary, plain-language observations, seven questions and next actions. | No comparable construction quote output was available to assess. | All four output types are demonstrated in the fictional public sample report. |
| What adjacent product strength is visible? | A workspace that keeps project and operational records connected. | A broader command-centre pattern across sites, projects, personnel, incidents and financial operations was visible in the demo. | A narrower member workspace tracks quote projects, reviews, reports, billing and support; many free-tool records are still device-local. |
What the benchmark actually says
Different products. Useful lessons.
TrueScope demonstrated the quote-assurance task.
Its visible product, sample, methodology and fulfilment controls are built around understanding a construction quote before it is accepted.
ConstructIQ/Sentinel shows stronger command-centre patterns.
The demo's portfolio view, reusable business entities, staff roles, guided tours, search and linked records are relevant design lessons even though its operating domain is different.
The right response is depth, then connection.
TrueScope should keep its independent construction decision focus while connecting quote, budget, variation, payment and snag records into one project-linked evidence trail.
Protocol and safeguards
A comparison should be inspectable, not theatrical.
Freeze one reference project
The same fictional renovation, values and known decision points are used throughout. Nothing is changed to make either product look better.
Apply an eligibility gate
A product must first expose a workflow that can accept and assess the construction quote task. A category mismatch ends the head-to-head score.
Record only visible evidence
Supported, not observed and not in scope remain separate. Missing public evidence is never converted into a fabricated zero.
Publish the limitation
This is a TrueScope-authored, read-only capability review of one fictional project—not independent certification, a penetration test or a general proof of superiority.
Evidence and limits
Read this result in context.
Competitor surface reviewed. constructiq.live ↗ identified itself as Sentinel Command and offered a public demo for Admin, Manager and Guard roles.
Review depth. Visible demo routes and controls were inspected read-only on 22 August 2026. The workspace contained little seeded operating data.
What was not tested. Backend security, tenant isolation, calculations, integrations and marketed refresh or audit-trail claims were not independently verified.
Disclosure. TrueScope commissioned, authored and publishes this comparison. ConstructIQ and Sentinel are third-party names; there is no stated affiliation or endorsement.
Future changes. Third-party products can change. If the supplied ConstructIQ surface adds a construction quote workflow, the eligibility gate and same-project run should be repeated.
Inspect the reference output
See every sample finding behind the benchmark.
The report is fictional and clearly labelled, but it shows the exact reasoning, questions and limitations used in this comparison.