AEC Integrations is an independent directory of the software integrations that architecture, engineering, and construction teams depend on. This page sets out how the catalogue is built: what we list, where the data comes from, what verification does and does not mean here, and how to challenge anything on the site. It describes how the site works today, and the standards we hold ourselves to.
What we list, and why
We catalogue software products used in AEC work, the vendors behind them, and the integrations between them. A product is listed when it is relevant to the industry and we can describe it from public sources. Inclusion is an editorial decision. It is never bought, and it does not imply any relationship with the vendor.
We classify every product four ways: what the software does, who uses it, which project phases it supports, and which specialty trades it serves. Each of the four draws on a fixed set of terms we maintain rather than free-form tags, so similar products can be compared consistently.
An integration appears only when both products at its ends are listed here. An entry naming a product we had never assessed would be a claim we could not stand behind. If an integration you rely on is missing, tell us.
Where the data comes from
Catalogue data is compiled from publicly available sources: vendor documentation, public API and developer references, public integration directories and marketplaces, and vendor websites. We curate that material into the classification above.
Curation happens in a separate review application, not on the live site. A curator reviews a record there and publishes it deliberately. Nothing reaches the public catalogue on its own. Each publication is written in one step together with an audit record, so the catalogue is never left half-updated and the change is logged.
Integrations are recorded in a set shape rather than as prose. Each one names the two products, the mechanism that connects them, and the direction data moves. The mechanism is one of seven: native, API, webhook, marketplace app, iPaaS (a third-party connector platform such as Zapier or Workato), partner, or integrator.
Underneath sits the smallest unit we work in, a claim: one kind of data, moving one direction, through one integration. Recording integrations this way is what makes them comparable across vendors, and it is what lets a vendor confirm or dispute one specific detail instead of a whole page.
We do not warrant that a listing is complete, current, or free of error. Public sources change, and they are sometimes wrong themselves. The correction route below is the remedy, and we use it ourselves.
What verification means
Verification tells you who has confirmed a specific claim. It does not rate the quality of an integration.
Every claim carries one of four states. "AECi" below is our own short name, and it is what the label shows on the page.
| What you see | What it means |
|---|---|
| Unverified · AECi | AEC Integrations recorded this from public sources. No vendor has confirmed it. |
| Confirmed by [vendor name] | One of the two vendors has confirmed this claim. The other has not responded. |
| Both vendors confirmed | Both vendors have independently confirmed this claim. |
| Vendors disagree | The two vendors describe this data flow differently. We show both accounts rather than pick one. |
Two rules govern that table.
Our own entry never counts as a confirmation. We record the claim, and our own record is excluded from the count. We can be the only voice on a claim. We can never produce a disagreement on our own.
"Both vendors confirmed" means two different companies. One company sometimes owns the products at both ends of an integration. The state is computed from distinct vendor identities, so a vendor cannot confirm both sides of its own integration and have it read as independent agreement.
Where this stands today. Vendor confirmation requires a claimed and approved vendor account, and the vendor portal that grants those accounts is not yet open. So AEC Integrations is currently the source of every claim on the site, and you will see "Unverified · AECi" throughout. We would rather label that plainly than imply an endorsement nobody has given.
Two other markers appear on listings and are easy to confuse with verification.
- Who maintains a page. Product, vendor, and integration pages carry either "Maintained by AEC Integrations" or "Vendor-maintained". A date appears beside it only where a person has re-checked that record. Most records carry no date, because nobody has re-checked them yet, and we will not manufacture one from a bulk update.
- The "Verified vendor" badge. It means a company has claimed its listing, been approved to manage it, and holds a vendor plan. It says nothing about the data, it is not a rating of product quality, and it carries no weight in ranking. It needs the same approved account as vendor confirmation above, so it appears nowhere today.
No pay-for-placement
Position is never for sale. Not the order of search results, not the order of any listing, not a slot on the home page. There is no sponsored placement, no promoted tier, and no arrangement under which a payment moves a product up.
A vendor plan affects four things, and this is the complete list:
- what a vendor may edit about its own company and products,
- whether a vendor can confirm or dispute integration details,
- whether the "Verified vendor" badge appears on its listing,
- how far back the version history on an integration page goes.
The last of those is the only place a payment changes what a reader sees, so it is worth being exact about the limits. The current state of an integration is always shown in full, to everyone, including whether the two vendors agree or disagree. Only the comparison between older versions is affected, and it opens when either vendor at the ends of that integration holds a plan. Readers are never asked to pay, to sign in, or to be identified.
A vendor plan never affects position in search or in any listing, whether a review is published or removed, or whether a listing exists at all.
We hold ourselves to this with a test rather than a promise. The set of things a vendor plan can unlock is checked automatically against the set of signals that order search results, and the build fails if any item appears in both.
Reviews
We do not review products ourselves.
Reviewers are asked to write about software they have used, and to score it on two separate measures: how well the product works, and what onboarding was like. Those answer different questions, and averaging them into one number hides the part that varies most between products.
Every review is moderated before publication against our Review Guidelines. A published review is the opinion of the person who wrote it. It is not a statement of fact by us, and it is not our endorsement. We show no rating at all until a product has at least five approved reviews, because an average drawn from one or two is noise presented as signal.
Corrections and disputes
Anyone, vendors included, can challenge anything on this site. There is no charge for a correction, and there never will be.
Every product and vendor listing carries two routes: a way to suggest a correction, and a way to claim the listing or request access to one a colleague already manages. Neither requires an account.
When you send a correction, tell us what is wrong and what it should say, with a public source where you have one. We check it against public sources and update the listing where the evidence supports it. We may decline or hold a request we cannot verify.
We correct factual errors, and we remove listings for companies and products that no longer exist. We will not remove an accurate listing because a vendor would prefer not to be listed. That independence is the point of the directory.
The Listing Accuracy Policy and the Review Guidelines set out the detail. Both are pre-launch drafts pending legal review, and each says so at the top. This page describes the practice they will formalise.
Who is responsible
AEC Integrations is built and maintained by The WBS Project, which operates the site and is accountable for what is on it.
Corrections, questions, and disputes reach us at founders@thewbsproject.com, or through the contact page. Reports about a specific review go to reviews@thewbsproject.com.