What one job hides, two jobs reveal.
A single mitigation estimate can look right in isolation and still not reconcile against the reconstruction job it is paired with in the same project. Estimate Analysis checks across jobs, and (with your consent) against a k-anonymized pool of other organizations' pricing. It reads Xactimate and Symbility prints alike, so a mixed-platform project still reconciles.
A mismatch between two jobs in the same project, named plainly.
Not cross-tenant: just the jobs already sitting in your own project.
Every job in a project already went through the same universal intake, so cross-referencing them costs nothing extra to parse. This is pure logic over data you already have.
Demo vs. rebuild square footage
Compares demolished square footage in a mitigation job against rebuilt square footage in the paired reconstruction job, room by room.
Affected-area consistency
Checks that the rooms named as affected are consistent across every job in the project. A room dropped from one estimate but not another is surfaced.
Mitigation-to-reconstruction sequencing
Flags timeline inconsistencies between when mitigation equipment ran and when reconstruction scope begins.
Total exposure vs. policy limit
Rolls up every job's total in the project and checks it against the project's recorded policy limit.
Your own history first. An aggregate pool if you opt in.
A dismissible, non-blocking panel surfaces two kinds of insight inside Review, Compare, and Budget: your organization's own historical pattern (useful from day one only if you have history), and (opt-in) a cross-tenant aggregate pool that is useful from your very first upload.
Own-history pool
Patterns from your own organization's past estimates. Zero on day one, and it only grows from your own uploads, never another org's data.
Aggregate pool
Contribute your (de-identified) data to receive: an org that opts in gets aggregate unit-price benchmarking by code, useful immediately, not after months of history.
Every insight names where it came from.
A finding that does not say whether it is from your own history or the aggregate pool is treated as a defect, not a display nicety. That label is what makes the panel worth trusting.
Aggregate figures publish only once enough distinct organizations contribute to the underlying number: a floor enforced at query time, not just documented as policy, so it cannot silently be bypassed by a future query that forgets to check it.
What people say after
a real finding.
Unedited feedback from estimators and claims managers who use Estimate Analysis.
"Used Estology on a $47,000 water loss. It found the missing line items and price drift in about ten minutes. The carrier accepted the supplement the same day."
"As a general contractor, I used to spend hours cross-referencing estimates. Now I upload both PDFs and have a defensible line-by-line report before lunch."
"I needed to explain why the contractor's estimate was higher than ours. Estology gave me a clear, sourced breakdown that both sides trusted."
"We had three competing estimates on one file. Estology showed exactly where each one differed and why, so the negotiation took one call instead of five."
"My position letter practically wrote itself. Every variance was sourced back to the original estimate pages, so the adjuster had nowhere to push back."
"I caught $12,000 in dropped scope the adjuster missed. Without a side-by-side comparison, that would have come out of my pocket."
"Used Estology on a $47,000 water loss. It found the missing line items and price drift in about ten minutes. The carrier accepted the supplement the same day."
"As a general contractor, I used to spend hours cross-referencing estimates. Now I upload both PDFs and have a defensible line-by-line report before lunch."
"I needed to explain why the contractor's estimate was higher than ours. Estology gave me a clear, sourced breakdown that both sides trusted."
"We had three competing estimates on one file. Estology showed exactly where each one differed and why, so the negotiation took one call instead of five."
"My position letter practically wrote itself. Every variance was sourced back to the original estimate pages, so the adjuster had nowhere to push back."
"I caught $12,000 in dropped scope the adjuster missed. Without a side-by-side comparison, that would have come out of my pocket."
What people ask about Estimate Analysis.
Short, direct answers about what Analysis compares, where the numbers come from, and how your data is treated.
What does Analysis look at?+
Consistency across the jobs inside a project and across your own project history: the same line item priced differently on two jobs, quantities that do not agree between a mitigation and a reconstruction scope, and pricing that drifts from your own norm.
Is my data pooled with other companies'?+
Only if you opt in, and only in aggregate. Nothing that identifies a project, a claim, or an organization enters the pool, and every figure drawn from it is labeled by source so you always know whether you are looking at your own history or the aggregate.
How many projects before the numbers mean anything?+
Aggregate figures are withheld until enough separate organizations have contributed to a comparison to keep it anonymous. Below that floor the panel says so rather than showing a thin number.
What questions can it answer?+
Whether your pricing on a line item sits above or below your own norm, where two jobs on the same project disagree, and which findings repeat often enough to be a process problem rather than a one-off.
Where do findings show up?+
On the project and job pages next to the work they concern, and in the dashboard strip across your whole organization, not in a separate report you have to remember to open.
Does it cost extra?+
No. Analysis is included wherever Review, Compare and Budget already run.
No separate fee.
Estimate Analysis runs wherever Review, Compare, and Budget already run. There is nothing extra to buy or activate beyond opting into the aggregate pool.