estimating programs

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Web-Est, LLC on November 12, 2009 at 2:04pm

Hello LG,

My name is JR. I'm with Web-Est. We provide collision estimating software at $99 per month. We offer a free 14-day trial. Go to the website, request a trial, and you can use the program and start writing estimates. Let us know what you think!

-JR

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LG Driggers on November 12, 2009 at 2:24pm

I gave that a shot but I wasn't happy with the method of obtaining parts pricing. Didn't seem to be a work around available when I let Web est know what I thought at the end of the trial.
If anything has changed let me know... it wasn't that long ago I tried it.

Thanks for responding

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Collision Hub Admin on November 13, 2009 at 9:08am

CCC Shared this with us:
"CCC offers a low cost solution called Comp-est."

Here is a link to the website:
http://ccc.cccis.com/pages/comp_est__estimating_solution/61.php

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LG Driggers on November 13, 2009 at 2:46pm

Actually that's who we have ......but we are getting zero service from them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joseph kinch on November 13, 2009 at 4:07pm

Audatex, CCC an Mitchael all work well, Contact the reps from each.
Let them know your interested.
If you tell them your looking into all systems , One of them will bite the bullet and give you a good deal.
Ask for the best deal from all of them, letting them know you serious and your looking at all systems.
Also ask about customer service, training and system updates.
We use Audatex, It has training and service support. It comes in web based or monthly dvds.
The students find it very easy and all must pass a shoplink estimating certification process on the system before graduation. Maybe I'm to tough.


Joe Kinch
Collision Technology Instructor
Medford Vocational Technical High School

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LG Driggers on November 13, 2009 at 6:02pm

Thanks... I've never heard of Audatex....I will definitely check it out . The service we have had from CCC Compest has us looking....I know Mitchell and CCC have joined in some fashion so I was a little hesitant to go Mitchell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheila on November 16, 2009 at 2:33pm

I've got love for Pathways Basic from CCC. A bit pricey at 274.00 a month with no DRP's but I can do about anything I want with it.

Seems others who write w/ Audatex are writing a bit higher than I do if I am not on the ball. Audatex has inside out and Pathways is outside in(or is that backwards,idk), so you really need to know your R&I operations well but if you are a decent estimator it should be easy enough.

For cheap insurance co's mitchell is the "it" system as it appears everything must be entered nearly manually therefore keeping the estimate chincy where with Audatex most ops are included so the estimates are accurate.

Pathways falls middle of the road of the two but here is why I keep it. Anybody can read it. It is not all mushed together lines. It is easy to see what each operation and part are and what is happening to them.

I can hand my techs an estimate and they don't need me to explain every little code. The tech can tell what each line items is and what the operation is and how much time they are being given.

If Audatex were to change the way the estimates look I would change.
If every cheap butt ins. co wasn't using Mitchell to low-ball every estimate and they look cleaner they might get my business.

I did try Crash writer and it wasn't to bad as I remember and they give a free trial so check it out, it would probably be okay for someone who wasn't set in there ways after ten+ years with CCC. Rarely have I ever needed to use tech support but it is not a problem to get a hold of support when I have needed it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Fowler on January 14, 2010 at 12:27pm

You will find that all three of the estimating programs are completely unreliable if you are looking for a program with any degree of accuracy, so my advice would be to buy the one that costs the least amount. Familiarize yourself with all the small print notes that go along with the main text that outline many of the things that should be covered in the main text but is not. This is supposedly done "to offer the customers more choices". At least, that's the explanation I get when I question why many operations have to be manually added or are missing entirely.
Whatever program you choose, be on alert for some automatic ommissions that are very cleverly hidden in the program. One program I had didn't always include clearcoat time for inner panels like jambs; you had to know where to look for where it was buried in the program. Another can't figure out that if you install a radiator support, both fenders have to be removed in order to do it. All three are guilty of perpetuating the fantasy that a blend panel only takes half as much time as a full refinish, despite the volumes of information to the contrary.
Buy strictly on price. More money sometimes gets you less. contrary to what you would expect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Sauro on March 1, 2010 at 2:44pm

Try a few, Pathways/Mitchell is the one I use. remeber it is not the program it is the estimator's knowledge
on working it to be sure the estimate is complete and acurate. ( It is to easy to miss things )
In MA the estimates that are written by insruance appraisers are just starting points it is a shame that they go to the expense when you see such short sheets. I feel that Insrurance companies are knowingly or unknowingly committing consumer fraud by using aftermarket parts and steering customers to DRP shop knowing that the main differance in these shop is that they have agreed to cuts in the process. Everyone involved in the repair process should have the customers vehicle as their top priority, Insurance companys should let the shops that know the real cost of repair and are in the bussiness of repair estimate the vehicle and they can come around and be sure that all the damage is in fact therte.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Sauro on March 6, 2010 at 5:54pm

To bad that the state insurance commissioner did not have the power to mandate the software used throughout the state on both sides, as this would be quite helpful having everyone same page.
(Wishful cost saving thinking)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Sauro on March 14, 2010 at 1:28pm

It is a personal choice, but remember as with the old guide books it is a guide
and the system needs to provide clear information and do what you need it to.
All these systems are used on both sides and remember which side is more
valuable to the software provider. Remember students or shops all need to know
how to use the system and what info is rock solid and what info is subject to
the user knowing better the correct time that should be fairly aloud for any given
function. These systems are guides, in the past I have gone to great lengths to
let the software folks know that they have not gotten a particular replacement time
right, they tend to take this seriously and will make an adjustment if it is warranted.
Many of the most difficult time to get a proper handle on will be inaccurate and the
estimator needs to know better. Students need to make estimating decisions so
would choose a system that allows them to think about what may or may not be
required in a certain operation. Remember as with state regulations estimating software
leaves allot to be interpreted depending on which side of the negotiation you are supporting.
It is never wrong to ask for the proper time and materials to fairly do good work for your customer,
though you can be made to feel it is so from the opposing side of the fence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Fowler on March 15, 2010 at 2:09pm

There is no "rock solid" information offered in any estimating software program. In fact, it is the estimating software programs that have presented the greatest obstacles to documenting true, or anything approaching true, repair costs. Explain to me how a system such as Ultramate catches every minute detail that would lead to a reduction in the amount calculated, in the form of ovelap, included operations, etc., but lacks the untuitiveness to automatically add anything. The overwhelming majority of add-ons are manual and the estimate will be deficient if you forget. Accident? I don't think so.
Who do you think leads the charge in perpetuating the myth that a blend panel takes only half as much time as a fully refinished panel? Did you ever see a software program that has taken the position to consider the volumes of information that contradict the blend panel myth as being valid and include realistic refinish time in their data base? The estimating programs that are currently available are decidedly slanted in favor of those writing the checks, not those performing the repairs. Not the first one can be viewed as being reliable or legitimate.
The question then, is why are they allowed to establish industry standards and how do they continue to be viewed as being legitimate when they admittedly conduct no time studies to come up with their labor figures?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page