Revenova vs Turvo: TMS for Freight Brokers in 2027

TL;DR: Revenova and Turvo both sell cloud transportation management software aimed at freight brokers, but they start from different places. Revenova builds its TMS on Salesforce and pairs it with CRM, so it suits a brokerage that already runs sales and carrier relationships in a CRM and wants to extend that system. Turvo organizes its product around a shared collaboration layer, so it suits a team that needs partner visibility. Neither vendor's price is printed here, so the cost side of this comparison ends in written quote requests rather than a figure. If you cannot yet tell which fits, run both demos on your own load data before you sign anything.

How we evaluated

This comparison rests on what each vendor publishes, checked against independent sources where they exist. We fetched Revenova's and Turvo's homepages and pricing pages on 19 October 2026 and recorded only what those pages state. Vendor claims about results, such as Turvo's shipment-volume multiple, are labeled as claims. Third-party review aggregators were used for context only, and we left out any score that rests on a small sample or an AI-generated benchmark with low stated confidence.

We applied one rule to money. A price or cost appears only when we fetched it, dated it and can link to it. Anything we could not source reads "Not published" in the tables, never an estimate. Our verified price list for this post is empty, so we do not reprint Turvo's first-tier starting figure and neither vendor's column carries a dollar figure; treat pricing as quote-based for both and read Turvo's own pricing page directly.

The criteria were five: fit with CRM and sales workflow, shipment visibility and partner collaboration, pricing transparency, onboarding and migration inclusions, and how much evidence stands behind each vendor's claims. We did not run either product ourselves, so nothing here is a performance benchmark. The verdict is written to be checked against your own demos, not accepted on trust.

Revenova: who it is actually for

Revenova markets a cloud TMS built on Salesforce that combines customer relationship management and transportation management in one product. Its site sorts the offer by customer type. For freight brokers it says the system manages customer and carrier relationships and uses CRM tools to identify new freight opportunities. For 3PLs and logistics service providers it covers multimodal planning, pricing, services and capacity management, with support for multiple languages and currencies. For carriers it runs from load creation through driver pay, including driver logs, incidents, dispatch and fleet management.

The Salesforce foundation is the fact that matters most for a particular buyer. Revenova's own site says the platform is one of "4,200+ applications that are developed and deployed on the Salesforce platform," so a team that already administers Salesforce can add its own fields, workflows and apps. That is a real advantage for a brokerage whose sales team already works in the CRM. It is also a cost to plan for: someone has to own the configuration, and the vendor's pages do not say how Salesforce licenses are handled in a Revenova quote.

Revenova also names an AI product, Artimus, which its pricing page describes as its native AI solution. Its integration list names accounting, freight-rate and visibility partners, including DAT, project44, FourKites, Samsara, Descartes MacroPoint, Blue Yonder, Comdata and Rand McNally. A named partner tells you who the vendor has a relationship with. It does not tell you whether a connector is tested for your carrier mix, so ask for the integration scope in writing.

Revenova's pricing page offers a demo request and a contact route instead of a figure, and it does not name plans or tiers. For a buyer who must build a budget before a first meeting, that is the largest gap in the public material.

Turvo: who it is actually for

Turvo describes itself as a cloud TMS built around what it calls a "unique collaboration layer that unifies people, processes, and data." The pitch is that brokers, carriers, shippers and 3PLs work from one shared view of each shipment rather than from separate email threads. Its site lists modules for inventory, orders, shipments, scheduling, analytics, a driver app with telematics, and an integration hub. For a broker whose main pain is chasing partners for status, that structure is the point of the product.

The most striking numbers sit in the 3PL pitch. Turvo's own site gives the headline claim for 3PLs as "3x more revenue, 5x more shipments, and 50% fewer manual updates." Those are the vendor's own claims, and the page attaches no sample size, customer list or methodology to them. Treat them as a reason to ask for a reference customer of your size, not as a result you should expect.

Our fetch of Turvo's homepage found no use of the term AI. The page describes automation in general terms, such as eliminating check calls, texts and emails, and it promises "100% traceability, live tracking, and predictive planning." Those phrases are broad. When you talk to the vendor, ask which automations follow fixed rules and which rely on predictive models, because a broker needs to know which parts fail in predictable ways.

Shipment visibility is the feature buyers most often test, and it is where Turvo's collaboration model earns its place. A status update has to come from a carrier event, reach the shipper, and land in the TMS record. When we map that status-update step for a brokerage, the trigger is the carrier event, the action is the shipper message, and the record update goes back into the system. US Tech Automations scopes that handoff as an agentic workflow. The dispatch scheduling software guide covers the dispatch side that feeds those updates. Map this step before you watch any demo, whichever platform you are evaluating.

Turvo's site also shows a logo wall of logistics operators, including Ryder and Lineage. A logo wall tells you who buys, not what those buyers achieved, so it does not settle the question on its own.

How the two compare on published facts

Source: Revenova and Turvo homepages and pricing pages, fetched 19 October 2026. "Not published" means the page did not state the item; it does not mean the vendor lacks the capability.

The table shows a clear pattern. Turvo publishes more of what a buyer needs to budget, while Revenova publishes more of what a buyer needs to judge platform fit, specifically the Salesforce layer and the AI product. Neither column is a verdict on performance, and neither vendor's public material shows how the product performs at your volume.

Pricing: what can and cannot be printed

Checked October 19, 2026. According to Turvo, only its first tier lists a price; the second is "Available Upon Request." Revenova's pricing page states no figure and offers a demo request instead.

We do not reprint Turvo's figure here, so read the linked page for it; it belongs to one tier. The page does not say whether it is per account or per seat, does not describe contract length, and lists its second tier as "Available Upon Request." The first tier's inclusions are a dedicated onboarding manager, virtual training, data migration, a support center and a community and academy. The second tier adds a dedicated customer success manager and quarterly business reviews. A published starting figure is therefore a floor for one tier, not a total cost of ownership. Ask Turvo to confirm in writing whether the figure is per account or per seat, which modules the tier includes, what the data migration covers, and what the second tier adds in price.

For Revenova, we printed no number, because none is published. Ask for a written quote that separates the TMS license from any Salesforce licenses, lists the CRM functions in scope, states the number of users in each role, and itemizes integration connectors and migration work. Ask also how renewal increases are capped, and whether the quote assumes a particular number of loads per month.

Across both vendors, the cost drivers to ask about are user count, module count, integration scope and implementation hours. The third-party review summaries we looked at describe add-on fees and customization costs as the usual surprises, which fits the switching ranges covered below.

The market numbers that frame the decision

Three external figures frame the choice, though none of them ranks these two vendors. The first is a regulatory floor. According to Cornell LII, a broker must file a $75,000 bond or trust fund. The rule requires a surety bond or trust fund of $75,000 in effect, filed on Form BMC-84 or BMC-85. That is a licensing cost rather than a software cost, but it tells you the brokerage you are buying for is already bonded and regulated before it touches a TMS.

The second is freight volume. According to Logistics Management, the ATA tonnage index fell 0.7% year over year in June 2026. The seasonally adjusted Truck Tonnage Index stood at 113.1 (2015=100) that month. One soft month does not settle a 2027 plan, but it argues for paying for workflow efficiency rather than assuming volume growth will cover a new system.

The third is adoption, and it is dated. According to FleetOwner, 86% of brokers with more than 10 employees used TMS in a 2018 survey conducted by InMotion Global, a TMS vendor. That is the most recent broker-specific adoption figure we could confirm. It is old, and its sponsor sells TMS software, so use it to frame the question rather than to size a market.

Sources: Cornell LII for the bond, Logistics Management for the ATA index, and FleetOwner for the 2018 survey.

Pros and cons

Revenova

Pros:

• CRM and TMS sit in one product on the Salesforce platform, which suits a brokerage whose sales team already works in Salesforce.

• Segment coverage spans freight brokers, carriers, 3PLs and shippers, so a company with mixed roles can run one system.

• The named integration list covers accounting, rate and visibility partners.

• The vendor names a native AI product, Artimus, rather than relying on a generic AI claim.

Cons:

• No price we can print, so the budget needs a written quote before it can be compared.

• The Salesforce dependency adds an administration requirement, and the public pages do not say how Salesforce licenses are treated.

• Third-party review summaries describe a learning curve and add-on fees. Those summaries carry low confidence, but they match what a platform built on another vendor's CRM would predict.

• The public material offers no published outcome results, and the homepage counters rendered without values in our fetch.

Turvo

Pros:

• A published starting price for its first tier on its own pricing page, checked on 19 October 2026.

• An onboarding list that names data migration, virtual training and a dedicated onboarding manager, which narrows the unknowns in a switch.

• A collaboration layer that puts brokers, carriers and shippers in one shipment view.

• Coverage across brokers, 3PLs, shippers and carriers from a single vendor.

Cons:

• The published figure applies to one tier, and the second tier is "Available Upon Request."

• Most performance claims, including the 5x shipment multiple, are vendor claims with no sample attached.

• The site describes its automation in general terms without naming AI or predictive methods, so buyers must ask which parts are rules and which are models.

• A third-party comparison site questions the depth of Turvo's specialized analytics. We could not verify that claim, so treat it as a question to put to the vendor.

What switching actually costs

Switching costs come from three places: the data you move, the people who retrain, and the parallel running period while both systems carry live loads. The data list is longer than most brokers expect: customer and carrier master records, rate tables and lanes, contracts, shipment history, open loads and the accounting links behind billing. Shipment history is the item most often cut to meet a date, and it drives your first-month reporting, so decide early whether you are moving it or archiving it.

Source: Nuvocargo's April 2026 TMS implementation post, a vendor blog. The post names no source for the cost figures and attributes the hidden-cost figure inconsistently. Treat these as ranges to test against written quotes, not as benchmarks.

The month it takes is the figure that changes the decision. According to Nuvocargo, implementation for 500-plus loads a month takes 5 to 6 months. A brokerage that cannot run two systems in parallel for that long should weigh the migration plan as heavily as the license. Parallel running is where much of the hidden cost sits, because staff end up keying the same load twice.

A practical way to test the migration is to move one workflow first. Rate confirmation works well for this: an email arrives with a rate, the rate is keyed into the TMS, and a confirmation goes back out. US Tech Automations scopes that kind of sequence as a workflow with defined handoff points, which gives you one step to test in both systems before cut-over.

Add routing to the cut-over list too, since it has to keep working while both systems run. The route optimization software guide covers the routing tools that have to keep working through the switch.

On data migration, Turvo's onboarding list names it as an included item, so ask whether that means the migration work itself or a tool you run yourself. Revenova's public pages do not list migration at all, so ask for it explicitly in the quote.

Verdict: who should pick the other one

Pick Revenova if your brokerage already runs customer and carrier relationships in Salesforce and you have someone who can administer it. Its value is CRM and TMS in one record, and that value shrinks if the sales team does not already use the CRM. Pick Turvo if your bottleneck is partner visibility across brokers, carriers and shippers.

Those are the cases where the two are not close. For a mid-sized brokerage with an existing CRM, they are close, and neither vendor publishes enough to call a winner on cost. We say so plainly, because a verdict that fits every reader would be no verdict at all.

Source: our leanings are judgments drawn from the published material above, not performance results.

Who should pick the other one: a brokerage with no CRM and no Salesforce skills should look hard at Revenova's platform dependency before choosing it for the feature list alone. A brokerage whose sales team lives in the CRM should not pick Turvo on its pricing page alone, because the public material does not show how Turvo's collaboration model handles the CRM-led sales workflow that Revenova is built around.

Before any demo, decide how you will measure carrier performance, so you can judge both systems against the same numbers. The freight billing software guide covers the billing-side measures worth comparing. Whichever platform you pick, the handoff steps above can be scoped as workflows, and the US Tech Automations site explains that approach.

FAQs

Does Revenova publish a price?

No. Its pricing page offers a demo request and a contact route rather than a figure, so any number you hear for Revenova has to come from a written quote.

What does Turvo cost to start?

Turvo's pricing page lists a starting price for its Plan, Execute and Settle Freight tier, which we checked on 19 October 2026; the page does not say whether it is per account or per seat.

Is Revenova built on Salesforce?

Yes, according to Revenova's own site, the TMS runs on the Salesforce platform, so CRM and TMS sit in the same system.

How long does a switch between these systems take?

Neither vendor publishes a migration timeline, so the only range we can cite comes from a vendor blog, which puts a 500-load-a-month operation at five to six months and a smaller one near two months. Plan for parallel running during that period, because the actual timeline depends on how many systems and data types you move.

Should a broker choose the vendor that publishes a price?

Not on that basis alone. A published starting figure for one tier is a floor, not the cost of the modules and users you need, so get both quotes on the same scope before you compare them.

Can a brokerage test both before choosing?

Yes. Request a demo from each vendor and run the same week of your own load data through both. Neither vendor's public claims can stand in for results on your own lanes and carriers.

Key Takeaways

• Revenova is the Salesforce-native option, and its pricing page publishes no figure, so the budget needs a written quote.

• Turvo lists a starting price for one tier on its own pricing page, checked 19 October 2026, while its second tier is quote-only.

• Vendor performance claims, including Turvo's 5x shipment multiple, are not independent results and need reference customers.

• Implementation time and data migration are the costs most likely to surprise a brokerage, with vendor ranges running five to six months at 500 loads a month.

• Pick by bottleneck: a CRM-led sales workflow points to Revenova, and partner visibility points to Turvo. Test both on your own loads.