UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
Newsletter

Stay up to date with UserCue

Case studies, product updates, and findings from our research.

By subscribing, you agree to receive UserCue research notes and product updates. Unsubscribe anytime.

UserCue

Primary research for high-trust industries.

Expert-led. AI-native.

Research for
Private EquityHealthcare & Life Sciences
Insights
Case studies
Company
ContactLinkedInPrivacyTerms
© 2026 UserCue. All rights reserved.
Insights / Case studies / Private Equity

Illustrative case study · Private Equity

Fleets rate the platform first, and one module costs it deals.

A bid on a fleet software platform turned on one question: would its lead over three rivals hold as fleets buy from fewer vendors? For the private equity investor behind the bid, we interviewed 250 fleet operators and reported back in 13 days.

Illustrative scenario
Samplen = 250

Illustrative report

Fleet Management Software VoC

Does the platform keep its lead over three rivals as fleets buy more from one vendor?

Study architecture

01
Score the fieldNet promoter score and a nine-criterion scorecard for four vendors
02
Trace the lossesWhy peer users who shortlisted the platform chose a rival
03
Test the bundleOne vendor or several specialists, and what must come in the box

Scope

A platform can top the loyalty scores and still lose deals when buyers want one vendor for a job it does poorly.

Sample

250

Fleet managers and operations heads running trucks, vans and service vehicles.

Research by UserCue
Study typeWin-loss study
ScenarioIllustrative
Fleet management software · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Fleets rate the platform first, and one weak module explains half of what it loses

The 250 fleet operators, 100 on the platform and 150 on three rivals, scored their software on nine criteria. The platform leads on loyalty, ease of use and route and fuel data. Maintenance scheduling is its weak point: the main reason in 49% of the evaluations it lost, and the module most fleets wanting one vendor say must come in the box.

+43NPS, n = 100
net promoter score for the platform
49%n = 61
of lost evaluations turned on maintenance scheduling
56%n = 250
would rather buy from one vendor
68%n = 140
of those say maintenance must come in the box

Figures rounded. Base n = 250 fleet operators unless stated.

Top lines

1The platform leads on loyalty and ease of use, and trails every peer on maintenanceNet promoter score and the nine-criterion scorecard03
2Maintenance scheduling explains half the evaluations the platform lostShortlists and lost-evaluation reasons04
3Most fleets want one vendor, and maintenance must come in the boxVendor preference and must-have modules05
4Second vendors already fill the maintenance gapWhat fleets buy beside their main platform06
5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07
AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

250 fleet operators

Segments

100 platform, 150 peer users

Method

AI-moderated interviews with a scorecard

Markets

US and Canada

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02
Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Illustrative scenario
Delivered in
13

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews
250

Fleet operators who sat on their last software selection.

Audiences
2

100 platform users and 150 users of Peers A to C.

Method
Scorecard

Four vendors scored on nine criteria, then why lost buyers chose a rival.

The brief
Client

A private equity investor

Decision

Whether the platform’s lead holds as fleets buy from fewer vendors

Stage

Commercial diligence, before a bid

How we ran it
Approach

AI-moderated interviews with NPS and a nine-criterion scorecard

Measured

Loyalty, criterion scores, lost-evaluation reasons, vendor preference

Sample

Fleets of trucks, vans and service vehicles in the US and Canada

Headline figures

Loyalty+43

net promoter score for the platform, against +8 for the nearest rival

One vendor56%

of all 250 fleets would rather buy from one vendor

Lost evaluations49%

of the evaluations the platform lost turned on maintenance scheduling

The question

Will the platform keep its lead as fleets buy from fewer vendors?

Fleet software is drifting toward all-in-one suites, and the platform’s customers are loyal. The people who choose it, the platform’s own users and users of three rivals, could say where it wins, why it loses and what one vendor would have to cover.

1

Where does the platform beat Peers A to C, and where does it trail?

2

Why does it lose the evaluations it loses?

3

Do fleets want one vendor, or several specialists?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

  1. 1Kickoff

    A lead to defend against three rivals.

    Does the platform keep its lead over three rivals as fleets buy more from one vendor? The kickoff turned it into three questions: where it beats each rival, the reasons it loses evaluations, and whether fleets want one vendor or several specialists.

  2. 2Design

    Four vendors, nine criteria.

    The screener admitted fleet operators who sat on their last software selection: 100 platform users and 150 users split evenly across Peers A to C. NPS and a nine-criterion scorecard covered all four vendors, and peer users who shortlisted the platform took a lost-evaluation module.

  3. 3Fielding

    250 operators, second vendors included.

    Operators joined by voice or text for a median 34 minutes, quant and qual in one conversation, and anyone with a second vendor said what it covers. The researcher read all 289 and removed 39 for duplicate identities, rushed responses or dispatcher roles, leaving 250.

  4. 4Analysis

    Maintenance drives one-vendor demand.

    The researcher laid lost-evaluation reasons and vendor preference side by side: one gap, maintenance scheduling, sat behind both risks. It explained 49% of the 61 lost evaluations, and 68% of fleets wanting one vendor said it must come in the box.

  5. 5Readout

    Half its losses trace to maintenance.

    The researcher took the bid team through a 37-page report at a live readout: NPS by vendor, the nine-criterion scorecard and lost-evaluation reasons, plus the full data file. A maintenance-scheduling add-on went into the first-year plan, with the win-rate case built on closing that gap.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Fleet operators rate the platform well ahead of all three rivals on loyalty and ease of use. Maintenance scheduling is its weakest criterion against every peer, and it explains almost half the evaluations the platform lost. The same gap drives the pull toward one vendor: most fleets that want a single supplier say maintenance must come in the box.

Fleet management software · Executive reportTop line 1
1

Top line 1 of 4

The platform leads on loyalty and ease of use, and trails every peer on maintenance

1 Q4. Net promoter question on the main fleet software, zero to ten, n = 250.

2 Q6. Rate your main fleet software on each of nine criteria. Five-point scale.

The platform’s net promoter score is +43, against +8 for Peer A, +4 for Peer C and −6 for Peer B1. It leads all three peers on ease of use, 87% against 68% for the best peer. Maintenance is the exception: 27% of platform users rate it good or excellent, below all three peers.

+43NPS, n = 100
net promoter score, platform users
+8NPS
Peer A, the nearest rival
87%n = 100
rate the platform’s ease of use good or excellent
27%n = 100
say the same of its maintenance scheduling

How platform users rate it, criterion by criterion

Rated good or excellent, platform users (n = 100)

50100Ease of use87%Route and fuel data79%Driver app66%Reporting56%Support response52%Maintenance scheduling27%

Net promoter score, platform users (n = 100)

Promoters, passives and detractors52%39%
PromoterPassiveDetractor

Maintenance rated good or excellent, by vendor

Peer B76%Peer A62%Peer C48%Platform27%

Nine criteria on a five-point scale, six shown, top-two box. Net promoter score = share scoring nine or ten minus share scoring six or below.

Supporting evidence

  • Peer B has maintenance built in: first on that criterion, last on loyalty. § 3.2
  • Platform users who also run a second vendor rate maintenance lower still. § 3.32
Illustrative report03
Fleet management software · Executive reportTop line 2
2

Top line 2 of 4

Maintenance scheduling explains half the evaluations the platform lost

1 Q8. What was the main reason you chose another vendor over the platform? Single select, n = 61.

2 Q7. Which vendors were on your shortlist at your last selection? Multi-select, n = 150.

Of the 150 peer users, 61 had the platform on their shortlist at their last selection and chose a rival. 49% name its weak maintenance scheduling as the main reason, against 26% who name price1. Compatibility with the telematics hardware already in their vehicles came third. Fleets of 200 vehicles or more shortlist it twice as often as smaller fleets, 55% against 27%.

61of 150
peer users shortlisted the platform and chose a rival
49%n = 61
name maintenance scheduling as the main reason
26%n = 61
name price
23%n = 61
name telematics hardware compatibility

Main reason for choosing a rival over the platform

Main reason, single select (n = 61)

50100Weak maintenance scheduling49%Price26%Hardware compatibility23%Other reasons2%

Shortlisted the platform at their last selection (n = 150)

Peer users41%37%22%
Shortlisted itKnew it, skipped itDid not know it

Shortlisted the platform, by fleet size

200 vehicles or more (n = 75)55%Under 200 vehicles (n = 75)27%

Lost-evaluation module asked of the 61 peer users who shortlisted the platform at their last selection; single main reason, shares rounded. Other reasons include contract timing and an existing relationship with the rival.

Supporting evidence

  • Fleets with several depots describe scheduling service across sites as the job they bought a rival for. § 4.2
  • Peer users who chose a rival met its maintenance module during the sales process. § 4.3
Illustrative report04
Fleet management software · Executive reportTop line 3
3

Top line 3 of 4

Most fleets want one vendor, and maintenance must come in the box

1 Q9. Would you rather buy fleet software from one vendor or the best tool for each job? Single select, n = 250.

2 Q9a. Which modules would a single vendor have to include? Multi-select, asked of the 140 who prefer one vendor.

Asked to choose, 56% of fleets would rather buy from one vendor, 37% prefer the best tool for each job and 7% have no preference1. Among the 140 who want one vendor, 68% say maintenance scheduling must be part of it, ahead of fuel cards and dashcam video. Peer users want one vendor more than platform users do, 61% against 49%.

56%n = 250
would rather buy from one vendor
68%n = 140
of them say maintenance must come in the box
61%n = 150
of peer users prefer one vendor
37%n = 250
prefer the best tool for each job

What a single vendor must include

Must come in the box, multi-select (n = 140)

50100Maintenance scheduling68%Fuel cards48%Dashcam video39%Driver payroll22%

Vendor preference (n = 250)

One vendor or specialists56%37%
One vendorBest tool per jobNo preference

Prefer one vendor, by current vendor

Peer users (n = 150)61%Platform users (n = 100)49%

Single-select preference question; shares rounded. Must-have modules asked of the 140 who prefer one vendor, multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

  • Fleets that prefer specialists say they would look again if one vendor covered maintenance well. § 5.2
  • Fleets that want one vendor without maintenance in it are mostly small and run no workshop of their own. § 5.32
Illustrative report05
Fleet management software · Executive reportTop line 4
4

Top line 4 of 4

Second vendors already fill the maintenance gap

1 Q5. Besides your main platform, what does your second fleet software vendor mainly cover? Single select, n = 120.

2 Q5a. What does the second tool do that your main platform does not? Open, coded, n = 120.

120 of the 250 fleets run a second vendor beside their main platform, and for 61% of them it covers maintenance scheduling1. Fuel cards and dashcam video account for the rest. Among platform users the pattern is sharper: 71% of those with a second vendor run it for maintenance, spend a full maintenance module could bring back to the platform. Fleets that run the two side by side say service dates do not pass between them, so workshop staff key every job twice.

120of 250
fleets run a second vendor beside their platform
61%n = 120
of them run it for maintenance scheduling
71%n = 55
of platform users with a second vendor do
52%n = 65
of peer users with a second vendor do

What the second vendor covers

Main job of the second vendor, single select (n = 120)

50100Maintenance scheduling61%Fuel cards34%Dashcam video5%

Run the second vendor for maintenance, by main platform

Platform users (n = 55)71%Peer users (n = 65)52%

Run a second vendor beside the main platform (n = 250)

Second vendor48%52%
YesNo

Asked of the 120 fleets that run a second vendor; single main job, shares rounded. The follow-up asked each of them what the second tool does that the main platform does not.

Supporting evidence

  • Platform users with a maintenance add-on still rate the platform highly: they buy around the gap. § 6.2
  • Fleets added their maintenance tool after the main platform, as they opened workshops. § 6.3
Illustrative report06
Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report
1
Question 1 · The scorecard

The platform leads on loyalty and trails every peer on maintenance.

Platform users give it a net promoter score of +43, against +8 for Peer A, +4 for Peer C and −6 for Peer B. It rates highest on ease of use and route and fuel data. Maintenance scheduling is the exception: all three peers rate higher.

Ease of use87%
Route and fuel data79%
Driver app66%
Maintenance scheduling27%
Rated good or excellent · platform users · n = 100
2
Question 2 · Lost evaluations

Maintenance scheduling explains half the evaluations it lost.

61 of the 150 peer users had the platform on their shortlist and chose a rival. 49% name its weak maintenance scheduling as the main reason, ahead of price at 26% and telematics hardware compatibility at 23%.

Weak maintenance scheduling49%
Price26%
Hardware compatibility23%
Other reasons2%
Main reason for choosing a rival · single select · n = 61
3
Question 3 · One vendor

Most fleets want one vendor, and maintenance must come with it.

56% of fleets would rather buy from one vendor, 37% prefer the best tool for each job and 7% have no preference. Among the 140 who want one vendor, 68% say maintenance scheduling must be part of it, more than any other module.

Maintenance scheduling68%
Fuel cards48%
Dashcam video39%
Driver payroll22%
Must come in the box · multi-select · n = 140
4
Question 3 · Second vendors

Second vendors already fill the maintenance gap.

120 of the 250 fleets run a second vendor beside their main platform, and 61% of them use it for maintenance scheduling. Among platform users with a second vendor, 71% run it for maintenance, spend a full maintenance module could win back.

Maintenance scheduling61%
Fuel cards34%
Dashcam video5%
Main job of the second vendor · single select · n = 120
“We love the routing. Every time a truck is due for service, though, we are back in a second system, and that is the one my mechanics trust.”
Fleet manager · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Ease of use
“Drivers picked it up in a morning. I have rolled out three systems in my career and this is the first one nobody called me about.”
Operations director
The lost deal
“We liked their screens more than anyone’s. The other vendor could book a truck into the workshop from the same alert, and that settled it.”
Transport manager
Two logins
“Two logins for one fleet is what my team complains about most. With a decent maintenance module I would cancel the other contract at renewal.”
Fleet coordinator

What the investor did

Three moves made with the report.

1The thesis · from finding 2

Funded a maintenance add-on for year one.

The deal model’s win rate now assumes the gap closes: maintenance scheduling was the main reason in 49% of the evaluations the platform lost.

2The upsell · from finding 4

Aimed the add-on at fleets paying twice.

Platform users who run a second vendor for maintenance became the first target for the module, with migration help from the tool they use today.

3The moat · from finding 1

Kept ease of use at the center of the roadmap.

The maintenance build has to match the platform’s lead on ease of use and route data before it ships to customers.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next diligence question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More private equity studies

Market assessment

Fitness Studio Management Software

Owners and managers of boutique fitness studios
Retention study

Contract Lifecycle Management Platform VoC

Current, former and rival-platform contract managers
Vendor selection

Commercial HVAC Installer Market

Facility and project managers who choose HVAC installers