Verdict
You would gain, but on one lever only
The problem is complex and you are already handling it sensibly. What is left is not in building better routes from scratch, but in what you correct by hand today: the exceptions, the constraints your tool cannot express, the replanning when the day changes.
Your profile
- Problem complexity
- — / 12
- Process headroom
- — / 9
- Data readiness
- — / 4
What this means in your case
- The realistic gain is on manual corrections, not on the initial plan: count how many times a week you rewrite a proposed route by hand, and why.
- If the corrections always come from the same constraint, the issue is not solver quality but whether that constraint can be expressed at all.
- On this profile, compare vendors on supported constraints rather than on algorithm quality: the difference between two good solvers on your case is small.
Where you would not gain
- If your current tool works and manual corrections are rare, switching does not pay. The recovery will not cover the migration.
Get the verdict by email
We send you the self-assessment result with your profile across the three axes and what to check before you move, including the reasons not to move yet.
The verdict is on its way to your inbox
We sent you the result with the points to check. Check spam too if you don’t see it within 2 minutes.
Want to think it through with someone?
Book half an hour to talk it throughNo demo: we look at your numbers and, if this is not the moment, we say so.
Check whether your constraints are supported
Answers to revisit? Retake the self-assessment.