SafetyCulture pricing for inspectors and report readers

Your supervisors complete inspections every day, while subcontractors need to read findings and respond to assigned work. SafetyCulture pricing needs to account for those different jobs. The product is now called Mitti following its August 2026 rebrand. If you are searching for iAuditor pricing, check current Mitti plan and seat terms rather than an older inspection-app price.

Use Full seats for frequent inspectors and template administrators. Evaluate Lite or Guest seats for people whose work fits their limits, then test their access to the actual report and follow-up task. Stay with the current plan if the roster, inspection frequency, and required evidence already fit. Adding readers should not trigger a blanket upgrade before you know what each person needs to do.

Separate the organization plan from each person’s seat

This evaluation uses official sources reviewed October 27, 2026, without firsthand account testing. Direct access to the main pricing page returned a rate-limit error; the published rates below came from its indexed official page, not a fresh checkout. Confirm the currency and order terms before purchase.

The published plan page lists Free for up to ten seats with five active inspection templates, Premium, and custom-priced Enterprise. Premium is advertised at $24 per Full seat per month on annual billing or $29 on monthly billing, excluding taxes. It also offers location-based quotes. Treat a location quote as a separate proposal rather than assuming it equals a fixed multiple of the seat rate.

The seat documentation distinguishes Full, Lite, and free Guest access. Mixing seat types requires Premium or Enterprise; Free organizations use Full seats by default. The decision criteria are inspection frequency, template ownership, report format, follow-up work, and access to other sites.

A person who conducts a second check after a repair may need more inspection capacity than their job title suggests. Count those follow-up inspections as part of the expected workload. Ask how the quota treats a restarted inspection, a duplicate, and work assigned near a billing boundary; the retrieved seat page did not expose the expanded answers to those questions.

Budget the same crew over twelve months

Consider a hypothetical roster of eight frequent inspectors and twelve subcontractor readers across the same projects for a full year. Assuming the quote confirms US-dollar billing at the published annual Full-seat rate, buying Full access for all twenty people gives 20 × $24 × 12 = $5,760 before taxes and extras. At the published monthly rate, twelve months cost 20 × $29 × 12 = $6,960. Those are comparable periods with different payment terms.

If the twelve readers can perform their required work as Guests, the eight Full seats would cost 8 × $24 × 12 = $2,304 on annual billing, before extras. The apparent $3,456 reduction only applies if that seat assignment passes the workflow test and the vendor confirms the account terms. A cheaper arrangement that blocks required work is not an equivalent option.

Some readers may need Lite access instead. Request its current rate and calculate eight Full seats plus twelve Lite seats for the same twelve months. Leave that total unknown until the quote confirms the rate, billing period, and required access. Do not substitute a historical Lite-seat announcement for today’s order.

Ask for separate lines for software, implementation, training, integrations, and any equipment or asset-related charges. Add tax and specify renewal pricing. Keep the project roster unchanged when comparing a location-based offer, and ask how temporary sites, closed projects, and seasonal workers count. A per-site price cannot be evaluated from headcount alone.

Run one inspection through capture, review, and correction

Create a proposed trial using a fictional site, an inspector, a subcontractor reader, and a manager. Use a harmless quality check, such as whether installed room labels match the agreed room schedule. Record one mismatch, attach a test photo, assign follow-up work, and have the manager review the evidence. This is an acceptance exercise, not a safety inspection procedure or a result from product testing.

Keep the site identifier, template version, inspection identifier, question, response, owner, and completion status in your expected output. Change the mismatched label response after the follow-up, then inspect both the current report and the edit history. Do not infer that a completed inspection means every related action is closed.

Mitti’s history download instructions describe a CSV containing the editor, modification time, item identifier, and old and new values on Premium and Enterprise. Its history limitations say inspection history does not include actions created inside inspections. Retain the action evidence separately when it is part of your acceptance record.

Repeat the review from the proposed lower-cost seat. Check that the reader can open the relevant inspection, see the necessary evidence, and complete the assigned work without viewing an unrelated site. Record any missing permission or seat restriction before expanding the rollout. The construction punch-list software comparison covers the adjacent decision when your main requirement is assigning and closing defects.

If the priority is digitizing an existing field form, the GoFormz pricing evaluation examines that different purchase. Compare the required capture, review, and archive steps before treating the two subscriptions as equivalent.

Open exported evidence outside the inspection account

The report-export documentation describes PDF export and Word export for Premium or Enterprise. It also explains that offline reports can contain protected attachment links and that video attachments appear as thumbnails rather than downloadable videos. A PDF that opens without a login may still point to evidence that requires account access.

Download the test report, close the application session, and open it from the intended archive. Check photos, attachments, dates, and the corrected response. Decide which source files need separate retention, and verify that your recipients can access them under the intended permissions. Test the exported form of the evidence you expect to keep.

Keep inspection evidence distinct from the daily site narrative. A daily report may mention that a check occurred without preserving every response or follow-up record. The construction daily-report software comparison addresses that separate reporting workflow.

Where Permute fits in recurring inspection reporting

Permute sells connected business data and custom applications, so this evaluation has a commercial interest. We can scope a reporting output from available inspection exports and project records, match site identifiers, and retain references to the evidence. This does not assume a native SafetyCulture or Mitti connector; the supported data path needs verification.

Once the team defines completed-inspection and unresolved-action rules, those definitions can be reused for subsequent reports. A field inspection manager could see which sites have missing evidence and inspect the source records behind each exception. The output should preserve a clear unknown when an attachment or status has not reached the reporting data.

Keep inspection judgment with the responsible people

This reporting scope does not replace field inspection, certify safe conditions, or guarantee regulatory compliance. Qualified people remain responsible for the inspection criteria, response, and required evidence. Neither a completed checklist nor a software subscription establishes that the underlying work is acceptable. Custom reporting also needs its own implementation and maintenance scope.

Preserve the archive before changing plans or products

Export representative inspections, edit histories, action records, and source attachments before ending access. Mitti’s current terms instruct customers to export their data before the subscription ends. Verify the practical export process early rather than leaving the archive to the cancellation date.

Rebuild templates, site assignments, user roles, and recurring schedules in the destination. Reconnect any approved integrations and test a corrected inspection across one reporting cycle. Keep the existing process authoritative until the new report, action follow-up, and access checks pass. Assign someone to resolve missing attachments and unmatched sites after the move.

The inspection frequency determines who needs Full access; the review task determines what everyone else needs. Price the same roster for the same year and validate lower-cost seats against the actual work. Preserve usable evidence outside the application before committing to an exit. If your current plan already handles those requirements, additional readers may only require a more careful seat assignment.

Questions about inspection seats and costs