What we learned analysing 32 reddit threads from safety software buyers

Published 10th of November 2026

Understanding your buyer’s pain points may sound like the most basic thing in the world but you would be amazed how many brands we work with that have never actually sat down and spoken to their customers about their main issues and then translated this into their marketing efforts; safety software is no different. 

Having that understanding about what your ICP is searching for when they do enter the market is critical particularly in a market like EHS software where the lead times from enquiry to sign-off to implementation can often be months to years. 

Here we have scoured all of the forums we can from Reddit to review sites to find some of the most common issues safety professionals run into when they are searching for software. Here we dive into the analysis and what it means for your marketing and AEO strategy with health and safety. 

Methodology: We have analysed 32 Reddit and form threads using AI to pull out all of the key themes that can be seen within the data; after breaking it down to different points, we have then created a report showing the key themes from the analysis. 

What are the biggest pain points when selecting software?

Choosing the right Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) software can be challenging, particularly when businesses need to balance functionality, usability and cost.

Our analysis of 32 Reddit discussions involving safety professionals found that pricing was the most frequently raised consideration when selecting software, appearing in 47% of the threads.

However, cost wasn’t the only concern. Safety professionals also wanted to make sure that any new system would genuinely improve their day-to-day work, rather than simply introduce another complicated platform.

The biggest concerns included:

• Pricing and return on investment (47%): EHS professionals wanted software that justified its subscription costs. Expensive licensing, additional modules and implementation fees were recurring considerations.
• Functionality and suitability (41%): Buyers wanted software that could handle their specific safety processes, including inspections, incidents, training and compliance management, without requiring multiple separate tools.
• Ease of use (34%): A major concern was whether employees would actually use the platform. Complicated interfaces, excessive data entry and difficult navigation were seen as potential barriers.
• Mobile accessibility (34%): Safety professionals wanted systems that employees could easily access from construction sites, factories and other workplaces, ideally including offline functionality.
• Integration with existing systems (31%): Buyers wanted to avoid creating more disconnected records and were looking for software that could work alongside their existing business tools.

Overall, the discussions suggest that EHS managers aren’t necessarily looking for the platform with the most features. They’re looking for software that makes their work easier, fits their existing processes and provides enough value to justify the investment.

What are EHS managers’ main issues with their current vendor? 

One of the strongest themes in the Reddit discussions was frustration with existing EHS software and the processes surrounding it.

Many safety professionals described systems that were either too complicated, missing important functionality or difficult to use consistently across their organisation.

The most common issues identified were:

• Disconnected systems and manual processes (44%): Many organisations were still relying on spreadsheets, paper documents and separate applications to manage safety information. This created additional administration and made it harder to maintain accurate records.
• Missing or limited functionality (41%): Some users found that their existing software couldn’t adequately support the workflows they needed, resulting in additional tools or manual workarounds.
• Complicated interfaces (31%): Difficult navigation, excessive clicks and time-consuming data entry were common frustrations. This was particularly problematic when frontline employees needed to submit information quickly.
• Poor value for money (28%): Some users questioned whether expensive EHS platforms delivered enough practical value, especially when additional functionality came at an extra cost.
• Poor customer support (25%): Slow responses, limited flexibility and difficulty getting changes implemented were also raised.
• Limited reporting capabilities (25%): Users wanted better visibility of safety performance without manually exporting information or building reports from scratch.

Reliability was another issue, with some contributors reporting software bugs, slow performance and difficulties using mobile applications.

Interestingly, the problems weren’t always about what the software could do. Several discussions suggested that platforms could have extensive functionality but still be frustrating because everyday tasks were unnecessarily complicated.

This highlights an important distinction: having the right features doesn’t automatically make EHS software effective. Those features also need to be accessible, reliable and easy to use.

What are the main things that the EHS managers wished for in a new vendor? 

Looking at the features and improvements EHS professionals requested, there was a clear preference for simpler, more connected software that reduces administrative work.

Rather than repeatedly switching between spreadsheets, emails and different applications, many wanted one system capable of handling their everyday health and safety responsibilities.

Several requirements stood out.

1. A simple, user-friendly platform

Ease of use was one of the strongest requirements. Safety professionals wanted employees, supervisors and contractors to be able to complete safety tasks without extensive training or navigating complicated menus.

This was especially important for organisations with large frontline workforces.

2. Everything in one place

Many contributors wanted to bring incident reporting, risk assessments, inspections, audits, training records and corrective actions together in one platform.

The goal was to reduce duplicate data entry and make safety information easier to find and manage.

3. Better mobile functionality

Mobile access was a recurring requirement, particularly among professionals working in construction and other industries where employees spend limited time behind a desk.

Users wanted to complete inspections, report incidents, attach photographs and submit safety forms directly from their phones or tablets. Offline capabilities were also important.

4. Automated reminders and less administration

Safety professionals wanted to move away from manually monitoring training expiry dates, outstanding actions and compliance requirements.

Features such as automatic notifications, scheduled inspections and follow-up reminders were viewed as opportunities to save time and reduce the risk of things being missed.

5. More useful reporting

Another common request was for dashboards that provide a clear overview of safety performance.

EHS managers wanted to track incidents, near misses, inspections and corrective actions without spending hours organising spreadsheets or manually preparing reports for management.

6. Transparent pricing and responsive support

Finally, buyers wanted pricing that was easy to understand, alongside vendors who could provide reliable support and adapt the system to their needs.

For organisations looking to replace an existing platform, the quality of implementation and ongoing vendor support could be just as important as the software itself.

The underlying message from these discussions was straightforward: EHS professionals want software that reduces their workload rather than adding to it.

What brands were mentioned negatively in the data?

It is worth noting that the extent to which Reddit is cited within AI has ebbed and flown over the previous 2 years but even if the importance does diminish you should still look to learn from reviews and where appropriate jump into the conversation as buyers will still be looking there. The below table shows the brands listed from our analysis and whether they were referenced generally positively or negatively. 

If you were referenced positively, feel free to give yourself a pat on the back as it’s no mean feet! If you are referenced more negatively, don’t get too down on yourself, there may be areas to learn from and if you want to try retrain the LLMs that may be using this data away from references that you may view as incorrect or misleading then a buyer guide campaign with HSE Network could be the perfect next step. 

Brand referenced negatively 

• Enablon: Criticised for its complicated interface, reliability issues and poor user experience.
• Safety Champion: Described as clunky and unreliable by a user looking to switch providers.
• Ideagen: Criticised for feeling outdated and lacking suitable integrated functionality.
• HSI: One user described their experience with its training software as mediocre.
• IMEC: Criticised for high costs and difficulties managing inspections across multiple locations.
• HCSS: Users reported frustrating limitations with its safety functionality.
• BasicSafe: Mentioned by an organisation seeking better mobile accessibility and reporting capabilities.
• LogicSDS: Considered unsuitable for a company’s SDS management requirements.
• eQgest: Evaluated but found not to meet a user’s specific SDS requirements.
• VelocityEHS: Received a strongly negative recommendation without detailed reasoning.
• Cority/Medgate: One commenter recommended avoiding the platform without explaining why.
• Benchmark Gensuite: Received a negative recommendation, although other users reported positive experiences.

Key takeaway: The most common vendor-related complaints concerned usability, reliability, cost and functionality. However, these are individual Reddit opinions rather than independently verified assessments, and some vendors received both positive and negative feedback.

*Full data available on request