Fresco vs STACK for Division 8 takeoffs

STACK and Fresco can both sit near the estimating workflow, but they are not trying to own the same part of the job. STACK is broad construction takeoff and estimating software. Fresco is narrower on purpose: doors, frames, hardware, and the messy document review that comes before pricing.

So the comparison is not “which product has more features?” The better question is where your current bid process breaks. If the problem is general estimating coordination, a broad platform belongs in the conversation. If the problem is a door frame hardware estimating workflow where schedules, plans, specs, and hardware sets keep disagreeing before pricing, you need a different test.

A door count is not a Division 8 takeoff

A door package can look simple from a general estimating lens. Count the doors, measure what needs measuring, and move on. Division 8 estimators know that is where the miss starts. The schedule is not always true. The plans can disagree. The hardware spec can change the bid more than the count itself.

That is why a broad estimating platform and a DFH-specific workflow should not be tested on the same shallow checklist. If the demo only proves that the software can count openings, you have not tested the part of the job that costs money.

What Fresco is trying to clean up

Fresco is built around reviewed openings: door schedule extraction, plan reconciliation, hardware set review, frame context, and export paths into downstream workflows like Comsense hardware entry and eMullion.

• Which openings came from the schedule?
• Which openings came from the plans?
• Which openings conflict with the spec or hardware set?
• Which fields are ready to hand off, and which ones still need estimator judgment?

Where STACK may already be enough

STACK may already be enough if the team wants one broad estimating environment across multiple scopes and does not need a dedicated DFH review layer. If doors, frames, and hardware are a small part of the estimate, broad takeoff and collaboration may matter more than trade-specific reconciliation.

The question is whether STACK gets your DFH scope all the way to a reviewed door, frame, and hardware schedule, or whether it gives you measurements and counts that still have to be rebuilt by a Division 8 estimator. That answer will be different shop to shop.

Run the same bid, then inspect the leftovers

• Use a real door package with known schedule issues.
• Ask each platform to identify scheduled doors missing from plans and plan doors missing from the schedule.
• Check how duplicate openings across match lines are handled.
• Ask whether hardware set conflicts are surfaced with source evidence or left as manual review.
• Export the result and inspect the cleanup: what is ready for your DFH workflow, and what still has to be rebuilt?

Where Fresco earns its keep

Fresco should feel sharper when the bid risk is trade-specific: missing doors, duplicate openings, hardware set conflicts, frame conditions, and handoff into DFH estimating tools. It is narrower than STACK. That narrowness is the point.

When the broad platform wins

STACK may be the better buy if the company wants broad takeoff and estimating software across multiple scopes, especially when Division 8 is not the main bottleneck. If the estimator already has a trusted DFH process and only needs a wider estimating platform around it, STACK may fit the business better.

Frequently Asked Questions