Togal.ai vs Beam AI.
These two get pitted against each other constantly, and they're actually pretty different animals — one is software you drive, the other is a service that drives for you. Here's how to choose, plus where a third option fits.
The real difference
Togal.ai is AI software you operate: it auto-detects, measures and labels spaces on floor plans fast, and you review and finish the takeoff. It's strongest on clean architectural plans and teams who want control and speed in their own hands. Beam AI (iBeam) is closer to a done-for-you service — upload plans, define scope, and AI plus a QA team return a completed multi-trade takeoff in a couple of days, reading specs and notes, with a tight accuracy claim. Togal is faster and more self-serve; Beam is more hands-off and broader in scope but on a project turnaround.
Side by side
| Togal.ai | Beam AI (iBeam) | |
|---|---|---|
| Model | Self-serve AI software | Done-for-you AI + QA service |
| Strength | Fast space/floor-plan detection | Multi-trade, reads specs, hands-off |
| Turnaround | Minutes, you finish it | ~2-3 days, returned to you |
| Scope | Architectural-leaning | Broad multi-trade |
| Pricing | Per seat (≈$299/mo Growth) | Per project |
Based on public documentation as of 2026. Togal.ai and Beam AI (iBeam) are trademarks of their owners; this is an independent comparison.
The third option
If you want Togal's self-serve speed and Beam's spec-reading, multi-trade depth — without a per-seat license or a per-project turnaround — that's where Pilars sits. It's self-serve software that reads the full set and spec book, covers every trade, flags code, scores every quantity, and runs at $100 per trade. You drive it, and it does the deep work itself.
Questions estimators actually ask
Is Togal or Beam more accurate?
Both report strong accuracy on suitable drawings; Togal cites ~98% on space detection, Beam claims ±1% on its verified, QA'd output. The practical difference is workflow: Togal you review immediately, Beam is verified for you on a turnaround.
Which is better for multi-trade work?
Beam covers more trades and reads specs; Togal leans architectural. If multi-trade depth matters and you want self-serve, Pilars covers both bases.
Which is cheaper?
Togal is per seat (around $299/month on Growth), Beam is per project. Pilars is $100 per trade, per plan with no per-seat fees, which is often the lowest total for high-volume teams.
Why consider Pilars over either?
You get self-serve speed plus spec reading, multi-trade coverage and code flagging in one tool, priced per trade rather than per seat or per project.