These answers are about WMS.info as a publication. If you are looking for answers about warehouse management software itself, start with what a WMS is, the glossary, or the individual vendor reviews.
About the publication
Who publishes WMS.info?
WMS.info is an independent publication covering warehouse management systems for supply chain, logistics and operations professionals. It is written and edited by supply chain practitioners and technology analysts rather than by any vendor, reseller or implementation partner. The people responsible for the content are described on the team page, and every editorial decision ultimately sits with them rather than with an advertiser.
Is the publication independent of the vendors it reviews?
Yes, and the useful question is what makes that more than a claim. We have no ownership stake in any vendor we cover, no reseller or implementation arm, and no revenue tied to which product you eventually buy. If any of that ever changed, it would be disclosed on the affected page and in how we make money before you read another word of the review.
How is WMS.info funded?
Advertising and clearly-labelled sponsored placements. That is the entire list. There is no vendor matching service, no lead-referral arrangement and no commission on anything you purchase, so nothing about our revenue depends on which vendor you choose. The full arrangement, including what advertisers can and cannot buy, is set out in how we make money.
Do vendors pay for coverage or for their ratings?
No. Advertising buys placement in defined slots and nothing else. It does not buy a rating, a change to an existing rating, a higher position in a comparison table, the removal of a criticism, or sight of a review before it publishes. When an advertiser asks for any of those, the answer is no, and the review runs as written.
Do you accept sponsored content, and how is it labelled?
Yes, we accept sponsored articles, and they are labelled as sponsored at the top of the page and in any listing or link that leads to them. Sponsored items are excluded from ratings and rankings entirely: a sponsored article cannot raise a score, and a vendor's score is calculated as though the sponsorship did not exist. If you find something on this site that reads like advertising and is not labelled as such, that is a mistake worth reporting, and we would rather hear about it from you than not.
Why is there no contact form or phone number?
Because a contact form is a lead-capture mechanism, and we do not want your details. Email to [email protected] leaves a written record on both sides, which matters when the subject is a factual dispute about a vendor. It also means this site collects nothing about you at all: no enquiry database, no requirements form, nothing that could be sold or passed to a vendor. The absence of a phone number is the same decision for the same reason.
About the ratings
Where do the scores come from?
Each score is an editorial assessment, produced by applying a published weighting to product documentation, hands-on evaluation and publicly available user feedback. The weighting is Feature Completeness 25%, Ease of Use 20%, Integration Capabilities 15%, Implementation Experience 15%, Customer Support 15% and Value for Investment 10%. It is not a laboratory measurement and not an average of third-party review scores. Our review methodology explains what evidence sits behind each criterion.
What does a score like 4.2 actually mean?
It means that applying the six weighted criteria above to the evidence available produced that figure on a five-point scale. It is a shorthand, not a verdict on whether the system fits your operation. A score in that range can conceal a very high feature rating dragged down by a difficult implementation record, which matters enormously if you have a small internal IT team and hardly at all if you do not. Read the criterion-level commentary on the page; the single number is the least informative thing on it.
Why do your scores differ from G2, Capterra or Gartner?
Because those are different instruments measuring different things. Peer-review platforms aggregate large volumes of self-selected user ratings, which captures sentiment well and product depth poorly. Analyst firms weight market position, roadmap and vendor viability alongside function, which is the right lens for a ten-year platform bet and the wrong one for a narrow operational requirement. Ours is an editorial assessment against a fixed published weighting. None of the three is the correct answer; a disagreement between them usually tells you which criterion is contested, and that is the part worth reading.
Can a vendor get its score changed?
A vendor can get a score changed by changing the product or by showing that a factual assessment behind the score is wrong. Because the score is the output of a named weighting applied to named criteria, moving it requires arguing a specific point on a specific criterion, which is visible and arguable rather than a quiet adjustment. Vendors cannot buy a change, cannot approve a review before publication, and are not told in advance what one will say.
How often are reviews updated?
Each review carries the date it was last reviewed, and that date is the honest answer for that page. We revisit a review when there is a material product change, when a release alters something we assessed, or when a reader or vendor tells us something on the page no longer holds. WMS platforms move at different speeds, so we do not pretend to a fixed calendar. If a page looks stale to you, say so to [email protected] and we will look at it.
Using the site
How should I shortlist vendors?
Start from your constraints rather than from a vendor list. Write down your order profile, SKU count, inventory characteristics, the ERP you must integrate with, whether you run automation now or plan to, and whether you can support an on-premise deployment. Those five or six facts eliminate most of the market before you have read a single review. Then use the vendor reviews and comparisons to build a shortlist of three or four, and take it to demos with the RFP template so every vendor answers the same questions.
Do you recommend a single best WMS?
No, and we would be misleading you if we did. "Best" is only meaningful against a specific operation: the right system for a 3PL running multi-client billing across several sites is a poor fit for a single-site e-commerce brand with 4,000 SKUs, and both differ again from a food distributor with lot traceability and expiry-date obligations. What we publish instead is what each platform is strong at, what it is weak at, and which operating profiles it suits. Our top platforms comparison is a starting map, not a ranked instruction.
Can you help with my specific selection?
We answer questions by email at [email protected], including questions about how we assessed something or where to look for a particular capability. What we do not do is consult, run selections, sit in on demos, or take a referral fee for pointing you at a vendor, because any of those would give us a stake in your decision. If you want to approach vendors directly, the guide to requesting quotes sets out how to do it without an intermediary.
Where do I start if I know nothing about this software category?
Read what a WMS is first: it covers what the software actually does, where it stops and an ERP begins, and the vocabulary you will meet in every vendor demo. From there, the software overview explains deployment models and pricing structures, and the resources section has the practical tools. You will get considerably more out of vendor calls if you spend an hour on that sequence first.
Corrections and contact
How do I report an error?
Email [email protected] with the page URL, the specific statement you believe is wrong, and what the correct information is. Supporting documentation helps and speeds things up considerably, particularly for pricing, release dates and feature availability, where vendor materials often contradict each other. Material corrections are noted on the page rather than quietly patched, so you can see that something changed and why.
How quickly do you respond?
We reply to email within two business days. A simple factual correction is usually made in the same window. A disputed assessment takes longer, because it means going back to the evidence behind a criterion and, where relevant, to the vendor; in that case you will get an acknowledgement in two business days and the outcome when we have it.
Can I contribute or pitch an article?
Yes. We are interested in people who have actually run, implemented or migrated these systems, and least interested in general commentary about the category. Pitch to [email protected] with the argument you want to make and what in your experience supports it. Contributed pieces are edited to the same standards as staff copy, carry an attribution, and disclose any commercial relationship with a vendor mentioned; a pitch that is really a vendor pitch will be declined or, if appropriate, redirected to advertising.
Do you cover vendors that do not advertise?
Yes. Coverage decisions are based on whether a platform is one that buyers in our audience are realistically evaluating, not on whether the vendor has a commercial relationship with us. Advertising is sold on placement only, so a vendor that has never bought anything from us is reviewed on exactly the same terms as one that advertises. A practical way to test that is to read our reviews of the largest vendors and check whether they contain real criticism. Our editorial policy sets out the standards each review is held to.
Still have a question?
Email [email protected]. Questions about how we work are welcome and often useful to us; if the answer belongs on this page, it ends up here. Our contact page lists which address to use for what.