FieldPulse vs Jobber
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Jobber is the stronger AI pick in Field Service Management: it has a visibility score of 40.3 versus 11.1 for FieldPulse, and ranks ahead in 89% of the answers that name both.
Choose FieldPulse if…
- user-friendly field service software
- responsive customer support
- intuitive mobile app and flexibility
- clear flat-rate pricing
Choose Jobber if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (40.3 vs 11.1)
- AI answers describe it more positively (54% vs 50% positive)
- You prefer a larger, established vendor (1,001–5,000 employees)
- Easy to use and dependable day-to-day operation
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | FieldPulse | Jobber |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 11.1% | 40.3% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in Field Service Management | #11 | #2 |
| Share of voice | 3.7% | 8.8% |
| Mentions this run | 19 | 44 |
| Positive in AI answers | 50% | 54% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
FieldPulse 0pp · Jobber 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Jobber leads on 3 of 3 engines
Head to head in AI answers
19 engine answers name both brands
| Prompt | Engine | FieldPulse | Jobber |
|---|---|---|---|
| What are the best field service management tools in 2026? | ChatGPT | #6 | #1 |
| Best field service management software for startups | ChatGPT | #4 | #1 |
| Best field service management software for startups | AI Mode | #6 | #3 |
| Which field service management software has the best reviews? | ChatGPT | #3 | #1 |
| Which field service management software has the best reviews? | AI Mode | #3 | #2 |
| Which field service management software has the best reviews? | Perplexity | #2 | #1 |
| Compare the leading field service management platforms | Perplexity | #14 | #9 |
| Alternatives to the most popular field service management software | ChatGPT | #6 | #2 |
| Alternatives to the most popular field service management software | AI Mode | #8 | #4 |
| Alternatives to the most popular field service management software | Perplexity | #4 | #2 |
| Which field service management software has transparent pricing? | ChatGPT | #12 | #1 |
| Which field service management software has transparent pricing? | AI Mode | #5 | #1 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | FieldPulse | Jobber |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | — | Flat tiers |
| Entry price | — | $29 / mo |
| Free plan | — | No |
| Deployment | — | Cloud-based web and mobile app |
| Integrations | — | 100+ |
| Support | US-based customer support by phone at (469) 382-5668, Help Center and chat, Dedicated customer success team for setup, migration and training | Live chat, Phone support at 1-888-721-1115, Email support, Premium Support on the Plus plan |
| Founded | 2015 | 2011 |
| Headquarters | Dallas, Texas | Edmonton, Alberta, Canada |
| Employees | 201–500 | 1,001–5,000 |
| Funding | Series C · $79M raised | Seed |
| Best for | Residential and commercial service businesses, such as HVAC, electrical and plumbing trades, that want scheduling, invoicing and customer communication in one system. | Home and commercial service businesses, from solo contractors to teams of 15+ and multi-location businesses |
Plans side by side
FieldPulse
Pricing not available.
Jobber
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
FieldPulse
- user-friendly field service software
- responsive customer support
- intuitive mobile app and flexibility
- clear flat-rate pricing
- strong customizable workflows
Jobber
- Easy to use and dependable day-to-day operation
- Covers quoting, scheduling, invoicing and customer management
- Free trial to test workflows
- Affordable starting price
- Strong ratings from a large review base
- Costlier than some alternatives
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “FieldPulse vs Jobber”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/fieldpulse-vs-jobber, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.