Cohiva Control vs eMaint: an honest comparison

eMaint and Cohiva Control are both computerised maintenance management systems, and on the maintenance basics they overlap. The decision is about depth and direction: eMaint is a long-established, configurable reliability platform, while Cohiva Control runs the maintenance core and then carries each asset through to its depreciation on your books. This page is honest about which buyer each suits, with no invented pricing or fabricated feature claims.

At a glance

Treat the right-hand column as category framing rather than a line-by-line audit of eMaint. Confirm current eMaint capabilities and pricing on their own site before you decide.

Where eMaint is strong

eMaint has been in the CMMS market for a long time and is part of the Fluke family, which gives it strong roots in reliability and condition monitoring. For an organisation with a dedicated reliability or maintenance-engineering team, the ability to configure fields, workflows, dashboards and reports in depth is valuable, and the connection to condition-monitoring hardware suits a predictive-maintenance programme. If your selection is being led by a reliability function that wants a configurable, enterprise-grade platform with a long track record, eMaint is a credible and well-regarded choice, and you would not be wrong to pick it.

Where Cohiva Control is strong

Cohiva Control starts from the same maintenance core and then keeps going into finance. Every asset you maintain is the same asset your accountant depreciates. The depreciation engine runs six methods, straight-line, diminishing value, double declining balance, units of production, sum of years digits and AASB 16 leases, and each monthly run writes to an append-only ledger and can post journals to Xero, QuickBooks, NetSuite or Cohiva Crunch. The monthly run is idempotent, so re-running it does not double-post, and posting state is tracked separately from the immutable ledger row so the ledger stays clean.

Money is held as a fixed-precision decimal, rounded half up, never as a floating point number. Depreciation never takes book value below the residual value, a deliberate floor.

The contractor-compliance gate is the second differentiator. A contractor whose public liability insurance, trade licence or site induction is expired, missing or unverified cannot be assigned to a work order. The block is a hard 422 at the API with no override, not a soft warning. The gate enforces the document set you configure; what is not configurable is whether the rule is enforced.

Cohiva Control is database per tenant, so each operator’s data sits in its own isolated database.

Choose Cohiva Control if

• You want maintenance and fixed-asset depreciation in one system, with journals posted to your accounting suite instead of re-keyed.
• You run regulated or insured contractors and want a hard, non-overridable compliance gate.
• You value an append-only audit and depreciation ledger and database-per-tenant isolation.
• You are an Australian operator and need AASB 16 lease treatment alongside the standard methods.

Choose eMaint if

• You have a dedicated reliability function that wants deep configuration and condition-monitoring depth.
• Your finance team already depreciates assets elsewhere and you want a reliability-led maintenance platform.
• You value a long enterprise track record and the Fluke hardware connection.

Both can run a serious maintenance operation. The deciding question is whether your assets should leave the maintenance system to be depreciated, or stay in it. See CMMS with fixed-asset depreciation and the best CMMS software buyer guide for the wider field.

Part of the Cohiva platform

Cohiva Control is one product in the Cohiva platform. Leisure and aquatic operators often pair it with Cohiva Complex for centre management, and finance teams connect it to Cohiva Crunch for the general ledger and consolidation. See the whole platform at www.cohiva.app.