Coperniq connects sales, project and service work, dispatch, field forms, invoicing, and automation for contractors. This review checks its public prices, QuickBooks and solar-design integrations, mobile evidence, support terms, security disclosures, and data-exit window against product-specific sources.
Coperniq lists Field and Office seat prices. Review its contractor workflows, mobile apps, QuickBooks integration, support terms, and 14-day export window.
Coperniq connects sales, project and service work, dispatch, field forms, invoicing, and automation for contractors. This review checks its public prices, QuickBooks and solar-design integrations, mobile evidence, support terms, security disclosures, and data-exit window against product-specific sources.
Pricing
Current public list prices are Field at $90/user/month and Office at $200/user/month. Platform seats, Coperniq Intelligence, and voice agents are separately priced; the public page does not show those rates, minimums, implementation fees, taxes, usage charges, billing cadence, or trial terms.
Contract
The public MSA makes term, start/end dates, and subscription fees Order-Form dependent. Unless an Order Form says otherwise, fees are due in advance, payable within 30 days, and described as non-refundable and non-cancellable. Public material did not establish ordinary convenience cancellation, auto-renewal/non-renewal, or a separate refund policy.
Strongest fit
Solar and multi-trade contractors willing to pilot a connected sales-to-field workflow and verify their full commercial and exit terms before signing.
Main caution
Buyers need to test offline work on their own devices and obtain written terms for total cost, support response, independent assurance, and a complete export.
What stands out
Coperniq publishes detailed work-order and dispatch guides, QuickBooks sync documentation, a broad OpenAPI specification, and a dated product changelog.
Y Combinator identifies Abdullah Al-Zandani as a Coperniq founder. His public profile identifies him as cofounder/CEO from May 2021; YC describes prior solar operations and energy-engineering experience. ServiceDax reports this published background without inferring performance or personal qualifications beyond it.
SourceY Combinator identifies Max Kazakov as a Coperniq founder. His public profile identifies him as cofounder/CTO from May 2021; public founder material describes software and solar-installation family context. ServiceDax does not infer statutory-office status, product responsibility, or performance beyond the source context.
SourceThe official site links to Coperniq’s LinkedIn, Facebook, and X accounts. LinkedIn identifies the company as Coperniq, links to coperniq.io, and visibly showed product/operator posts dated April 25, August 30, and December 17, 2025; the visible examples had 10, 38/one comment, and 25 likes respectively. Publicly visible LinkedIn data did not establish a reliable 2026 posting run. Those counts are context only, not a product-quality measure.
SourceThe attributable Facebook page identifies Coperniq Inc. as responsible, links to coperniq.io, and shows a San Diego contact/address. The public view showed 711 followers, one review marked not yet rated, and a July 22, 2023 cover-photo update; it did not establish a current Facebook posting cadence. The Instagram account @coperniqinc links to coperniq.io and calls itself a solar project-management platform, but the unauthenticated view exposed 13 followers/one following and no dated posts. The official X account @Coperniqinc is linked in the site footer; its public view showed 12 posts, 89 followers, and no readable dated post stream. These channels are attributable, but only LinkedIn provides dated post examples in the public review.
SourceCoperniq’s official public changelog showed substantive release communications on July 10, July 22, and August 5/6, 2026, including Quick Proposals, Analytics v4, project financials, ABC Supply, QuickBooks Catalog, dispatch/calendar, mobile, and AI-call items. This is the strongest current public operating-communication record located; it is not proof of uptime, support quality, adoption, or release safety.
SourceCoperniq publishes detailed work-order and dispatch guides, QuickBooks sync documentation, a broad OpenAPI specification, and a dated product changelog.
Third-party assurance
Vendor security controls documented
Coperniq’s public MSA and Privacy Policy describe industry-standard technical and organizational measures, encryption/SSL, firewalls, access controls, security-incident process, U.S.-based hosting language, and a privacy/service-provider role. ServiceDax did not locate a Coperniq-specific public SOC 2/ISO artifact, CSA STAR/TrustPartners listing, public DPA, complete production-data subprocessor schedule, or trust-center artifact. That is a public-evidence limitation, not a security conclusion.
SourceThese are gaps in the public record. Ask the vendor directly; several may well exist without being publicly documented.
ServiceDax editorial walkthrough
Coperniq links contractor sales, projects, service visits, field work, and billing. Its public documentation shows how those records connect; a buyer still needs to test the handoffs on a real job.
I would start with a changed appointment, a failed accounting sync, and a technician without signal. Those cases will tell me more than a clean demo.
Coperniq scores 67 out of 100 on ServiceDax’s Public-Evidence Fit & Exit Score. That is a C, partly documented. It is not a judgment on whether the software is good or bad. It describes how much a buyer can verify from the public record before sales calls begin.
The documented field workflow, integrations, API, support library, and product changelog earn credit. The open questions concern total cost, cancellation, offline work, support commitments, independent assurance, and what a customer can export. Those are the questions I would take into a sales call.
Coperniq puts a lot of its public detail into the work that happens after a lead is interested. There are sales requests and opportunities, projects and service work, scheduled and dispatched orders, phases, checklists, forms, photos, notes, time tracking, invoices, payments, automations, and dashboards. A phase can be set to wait until earlier work is done. A work order can require a checklist before it closes. That kind of structure can stop a project from moving ahead just because somebody remembered to change a status.
I would watch the handoff from the office to the field. A lead should become the right kind of work. The scheduler should assign the right person. The technician should see the right form and the office should know when it is complete. Then I would make the job change. Add a site issue, replace the technician, move the date, take a deposit, revise a scope, and send it to billing. A platform earns its place when those changes stay understandable for everyone.
The schedule page is worth reading closely. Coperniq documents an unscheduled queue, a calendar, team and user views, filters, map context, and drag-and-drop changes. It warns about schedule conflicts, but it does not block a double booking. That could be fine for an office that wants discretion. A company with tight crew capacity should have Coperniq show exactly how it handles skills, drive time, breaks, service areas, multi-day work, and an overbooked technician. The map is useful context. I would not assume it is route optimization until it performs that job in front of me.
This is one of the parts I like. Coperniq does not just put a QuickBooks logo on an integrations page. Its guide describes how customers, projects, invoices, and payments can move between systems. It explains matching choices, duplicate controls, linked-record limits, and the fact that the documented QuickBooks connection is USD only. The guide also tells me where the edges are, which is usually more useful than a vague claim that everything syncs.
I would bring in the person who owns the books early. We would build a test customer and run an estimate, invoice, deposit, partial payment, tax, credit, refund, void, change in each system, duplicate, and a failed sync. Then we would decide which system owns each record. There is no shortcut here. An integration can look perfect until one correction lands in the wrong place.
Coperniq also publishes meaningful Aurora Solar and OpenSolar guidance. The docs cover linked projects, event triggers, mappings, duplicate policy, and integration logs. Its public API is broad enough to be useful for a company with internal technical help, and the rate limits are stated. Webhooks have a clear gap: Coperniq says it retries a failed delivery, but the public documentation does not describe signing, delivery order, retry timing, replay, or a dead-letter path. I would deliberately fail an endpoint during the pilot and see what the team can diagnose without opening a support ticket.
Coperniq has real iOS and Android apps, and the field workflow is not just a web page squeezed into a phone. The public materials cover work orders, forms, checklists, notes, photos, schedules, and time/activity. That is enough to put it in the hands of a crew for a pilot.
The public review record points to a practical test. Apple displayed 1.0 from one rating, while Google Play displayed 2.9 from 14 reviews when ServiceDax checked it. That is not enough volume to make a platform-wide claim. Still, the visible comments mentioned photo uploads, navigation, typing, and mobile/web interaction. I would take the exact phones the crew owns, turn on a poor connection or airplane mode, and ask them to complete the work. Add a photo, fill the checklist, capture time, make a change, reconnect, and let the office touch the same job at the same time. The field team will know quickly whether the app gets in their way.
Coperniq has an Academy item called Offline Data Capture and release notes mentioning offline sync improvements. The public file did not spell out what an employee can do offline, what queues locally, or how conflicting edits are resolved. I would keep the pilot standard high until that answer is demonstrated.
Coperniq publishes $90 per field user per month and $200 per office user per month. Platform seats, Coperniq Intelligence, and voice agents cost extra, but their public prices are not listed. The seat price alone is not a budget.
The missing number is the one that matters. I would ask for the first-year and renewal amount with every seat, implementation, migration, training, required integration, AI or voice use, payment charge, tax, and any usage threshold included. I would also ask what happens when we add a crew, remove a crew, need more API capacity, or want to leave.
The public MSA says fees are non-refundable and non-cancellable unless the Order Form changes that. It leaves the actual subscription dates and term in the Order Form. I would read those documents side by side before signing. A useful product can become an expensive mistake if nobody knows how the commercial commitment works after the first busy season.
Coperniq publishes an MSA and Privacy Policy that go beyond a generic security sentence. They describe customer-data ownership, encryption and SSL, firewalls, access controls, an incident process, U.S.-based servers, and a privacy/service-provider role. The policy also says data may be processed in the United States and elsewhere, so I would ask where production data, backups, support access, and disaster recovery actually sit for our tenant.
There is a public wording issue I would resolve before purchase. The MSA says it will inform a customer without unreasonable delay and includes the phrase “but in no event, less than 72 hours” after awareness of a defined security incident. That is not the same as a clear maximum notice period. I would request a written outside deadline, what events count, how updates arrive, and who owns the work if a customer must notify its own people.
ServiceDax did not locate a Coperniq public SOC 2 or ISO artifact, CSA STAR listing, TrustPartners entry, trust-center record, public DPA, or complete production-data subprocessor list. That does not tell me the product is unsafe. It tells me to request the current DPA, subprocessor/data-flow schedule, assurance or testing material under NDA, security-questionnaire process, and the controls that apply to our selected plan.
Coperniq’s exit clause is specific. After expiration or termination, the MSA gives a customer 14 days of limited access to export one copy of stored customer content and data. Its support material documents CSV exports, and the API can reach many kinds of records and files. That is a workable place to start.
But a project page and a usable departure package are different things. I would ask an administrator to export a real sample and open it outside Coperniq. I want customers, opportunities, projects, work orders, phases, forms, photos, files, signatures, invoices, payments, time, custom fields, notes, workflow history, archived records, and API-created data. Then I would ask what is missing, what the linked media looks like, what the formats are, how long a download works, what an exit costs, and when backups are actually removed.
Fourteen days disappears fast when a company is changing software under pressure. I would run the exercise long before cancellation is on the table. And I would save the results somewhere our team controls.
Coperniq Inc. is named in the public MSA as a Delaware corporation. Y Combinator lists the company as founded in 2021 and identifies Abdullah Al-Zandani and Max Kazakov as founders. Their public backgrounds connect the company to solar operations and software. I also looked at its public channels. LinkedIn has dated 2025 product and operator posts. Facebook is attributable, but the public view mainly showed an older 2023 cover update. Instagram and X are attributable, but their public views did not give me enough dated material to claim a current posting rhythm. I would not turn followers or reactions into a score for the product.
I would still clarify the address picture. The legal notice address is a San Francisco PMB, while public Facebook and Google Play records show San Diego addresses and another phone number. Those may be ordinary mailing and developer details. The public file does not explain it, and a buyer should know exactly which entity is taking responsibility for the contract, data, support, and bill.
Independent B2B reviews are not there yet. G2, Capterra, Software Advice, GetApp, Trustpilot, SourceForge, and Slashdot had zero or no Coperniq reviews in this review. I would ask Coperniq for references selected by us, not just by them: a recent implementation, a field-heavy team on the same phone mix, a company that uses the same accounting/design connections, and somebody who has had to call support during a problem.
Coperniq belongs on the shortlist for teams that need connected sales, project, field-service, and accounting work, especially in solar or electrification. Its documentation is substantial; the unanswered commercial and field-use questions make a pilot essential.
If it handles our changed jobs, weak connectivity, accounting exceptions, and data export with our own records, I would keep it in contention. Vague answers on the field app or contract would send me back to the alternatives.
Public visual evidence
Coperniq's App Store sample shows a field work order, map-based dispatch view, record search, and schedule. The screens expose useful job status and context, but the example is dated August 2025 and appears to use demonstration data. These images are a visual sample, not a test of current app behavior.
Professionalism
Work-order status, phase, location, assignment, and timing are legible. The screens look functional, though the crowded search results need a live usability check.
Simplicity
The work order leads with its status and details; the schedule groups jobs by day. A technician may still need to navigate several views to finish a job.
Distinctiveness
The map and schedule connect visits to specific work orders. The images do not establish route optimization or automatic conflict resolution.
Consistency
The dispatched and assigned labels appear across search and schedule views. Colors and cards vary, so I would test how exceptions and overdue work are displayed.
Likely field usability
Large job cards and readable statuses may help on a phone. These static images cannot establish offline behavior, photo uploads, sync recovery, accessibility, or speed.
Screen 1 of 4
What is visible: An inspection work order shows an On the way action, phase, address, dispatched status, priority, and assignment.
My design read: The core job facts are visible without opening another record. The duplicated Created labels in this sample deserve a live check.
View the source media ↗Screen 2 of 4
What is visible: A map sits above a dispatched visit card with time, address, and visit count.
My design read: The card is easy to spot; the image does not prove live navigation, route optimization, or map accuracy.
View the source media ↗Screen 3 of 4
What is visible: Search exposes client, project, request, and work-order filters with recent results and status labels.
My design read: The filter categories are clear, while long job names and addresses crowd the result list.
View the source media ↗Screen 4 of 4
What is visible: A month calendar leads into assigned and dispatched jobs for the selected day.
My design read: Date and status are prominent. The screenshot cannot show how rescheduling or conflicts behave.
View the source media ↗The attributable independent B2B review record is currently zero/no-review across G2, Capterra, Software Advice, GetApp, Trustpilot, SourceForge, and Slashdot. G2/Gartner marketplace listings are documented as one shared/syndicated review universe, not aggregated. The only nonzero public feedback located is app-specific and small: Apple displayed 1.0/5 from one rating, while Google Play displayed 2.9/5 from 14 reviews and 1K+ downloads. Visible comments were mixed and are treated as field-pilot questions, not a platform-wide conclusion.
Small sample: 15 total reviews across all platforms. Ratings drawn from samples this size are not a reliable measure of broad market experience, in either direction.
Ratings belong to the platforms shown and were read on 2026-10-07. We do not host reviews, and we never convert review sentiment into a security or exit-readiness claim.
These are research comparisons, not automatic substitutes. The right option depends on the workflow, contract, and data controls your business needs.
Compare mature trade-project operations and accounting integrations.
Compare service dispatch, field mobility, and public offline documentation.
Compare communications-led service work and a larger public review record.
Class A: legal, regulatory, product, or registry material. Class B: vendor-published support or product material. Class C: independent review platform or community source.
Something here out of date or wrong?Request a correction ↗
This file records what was documented in reviewed public sources on 2026-10-07. It is not a security certification, a legal opinion, or a recommendation. Where something is marked not verified, it means we looked and did not find it publicly. It does not mean the item is absent or deficient.