FloorPins
A FloorPins alternative that reads the nameplate
FloorPins and Tagvexa both put equipment on a floor plan. The difference is what happens either side of the pin.
FloorPins is building survey software built around floor plan pinning: upload a PDF plan, click to place equipment, fill a custom form, export CSV. Tagvexa does the pinning too, then adds the two steps that usually happen after the site visit — reading the nameplate out of the photo, and comparing the result against the design schedule. If your bottleneck is placing pins quickly, FloorPins is a fair choice. If it is the typing and the reconciliation afterwards, that is the gap we built for.
Side by side
01: Upload floor plans and place equipment pins
02: Custom survey forms per equipment type
03: Nameplate fields read from the photo
04: Source photo attached to every field
05: Compared against the design schedule
06: Missing and conflicting items raised as findings
07: Multi-user surveying on one project
08: CSV / data export
09: DXF export with units and layers
10: Published price
| Capability | Tagvexa | FloorPins |
|---|---|---|
| Upload floor plans and place equipment pins | Yes | Yes |
| Custom survey forms per equipment type | Not claimed as custom form builder | Yes |
| Nameplate fields read from the photo | Yes, proposed and flagged for review | Not claimed |
| Source photo attached to every field | Yes | Photos supported; per-field linkage not claimed |
| Compared against the design schedule | Yes | Not claimed |
| Missing and conflicting items raised as findings | Yes | Not claimed |
| Multi-user surveying on one project | Yes | Yes |
| CSV / data export | Yes | Yes |
| DXF export with units and layers | Yes | Not claimed |
| Published price | From $500 a month per firm, billed annually; three plans by users and projects | $25 a month flat, unlimited users and projects |
Everything in the FloorPins column was read from their own site on 18 September 2026. Where it says a capability is not claimed, that means exactly that: we found no mention of it, not that the product cannot do it. Products change, and theirs is the authoritative description. If we have something wrong, tell us and we will correct it.
When FloorPins is the better pick
You want the simplest thing that works. Fewer moving parts means less to learn and less to go wrong. A tool that pins and exports is easy to hand to a junior surveyor on their first day.
You have no drawings or schedules to compare against. Schedule reconciliation is most of what Tagvexa adds. Without a schedule, you are paying for a capability you cannot use.
You trust typing more than extraction. This is a reasonable position. A field you read and typed yourself was never wrong; an extracted field has to be reviewed before it can be trusted. We think review is cheaper than transcription, but that is a judgment, not a fact.
When Tagvexa is the better pick
The retyping is the expensive part. If a survey ends with a phone full of nameplate photos and someone transcribing them into a spreadsheet days later, that is the step we remove.
You have a design schedule and need to know where it disagrees. A rating that does not match, or a tag on the schedule that was never photographed, is a finding that should surface while the engineer is still in the building rather than in a design review.
Somebody has to stamp the output. Every field stays attached to the photo it came from, uncertain reads are flagged and wait for a person, and you can see which values the software set and which an engineer confirmed.
The drawing has to go back into CAD. Reviewed geometry exports as DXF with real units and predictable layers, rather than as a data file somebody redraws.
What we are not claiming
Tagvexa is not faster per pin, and extraction is not accuracy. Nameplate reads can be wrong — glare, small text, a damaged plate — which is why they are flagged rather than filed. Nothing here produces a verified as-built model, and none of it replaces engineering judgment.
Questions people actually ask
Is Tagvexa a drop-in replacement for FloorPins?
Not exactly. Both let you place equipment on an uploaded floor plan, so the pinning part overlaps. The difference is what happens either side of the pin: Tagvexa extracts nameplate fields from the photo instead of asking you to type them, and compares the resulting record against the design schedule. If pinning and a CSV is all you need, FloorPins does that and does it simply.
Does FloorPins do nameplate extraction?
Their site does not claim it. It describes custom survey forms for capturing data by equipment type, which is manual entry. That is a legitimate design: typing a field you have read yourself is never wrong, whereas an extracted field has to be reviewed.
Which is faster in the field?
Probably FloorPins, if speed means time per pin. Their own positioning is minutes rather than days, and a simpler tool with fewer moving parts is genuinely quicker to operate. Tagvexa trades some of that for work you would otherwise do afterwards: transcription, and finding the gaps against the schedule.
We only have PDF floor plans and no schedules. Does the comparison matter?
Less. Schedule reconciliation is the main thing Tagvexa adds and it needs a schedule to reconcile against. Without one you still get nameplate extraction, review and export, but you are using a narrower slice of it, and FloorPins may suit you better.
FloorPins is $25 a month. Why is Tagvexa twenty times that?
Because they are priced against different things. $25 a month buys a pin on a plan with a photo attached, and that is a fair price for it. $500 a month per firm is priced against what a survey costs after the site visit: several hundred dollars of engineer time transcribing and reconciling, and a return trip when something was missed. If your jobs do not have that afterwards, FloorPins is the better buy, and we say so below.
Can either export to CAD?
Tagvexa exports reviewed drawing geometry as DXF with real units and layers. We found no CAD export claimed on the FloorPins site; their export is described as CSV.