The short version. These two differ less on features than on who does the thinking. allwhere’s model starts with a conversation and designs an arrangement around your situation. RemoAsset, which is our own product and should be read with that in mind, is closer to a system you configure and operate. If your equipment situation is unusual, consultation is worth paying for. If it is ordinary and you have somebody to run it, a designed arrangement is overhead you do not need.
The disclosure
RemoAsset is built by the company that publishes this site, so treat this as a comparison written by an interested party and check it. Details about allwhere come from its own site, read on 21 October 2026.
The real difference is the operating model
allwhere positions around consultation. You describe what you need, somebody designs an arrangement, and the relationship carries that design forward. The implicit assumption is that your situation has enough specificity that a standard configuration would not fit it well.
RemoAsset assumes the opposite for most buyers: that equipment logistics across a lot of companies looks broadly similar, and what you want is a system that handles the common shape well and gets out of the way.
Both assumptions are right for different companies, and there is no general answer. What there is, is a reasonably reliable test, which is the next section.
The test that tells you which one you are
Write down the three things about your equipment situation that you think make it unusual. Then show that list to somebody outside your company who works in this area.
Most of the time, two of the three turn out to be ordinary. Hiring across several countries, a mix of Mac and Windows, people joining faster than devices arrive, a register that drifted: these feel specific from inside and are the normal shape of the problem.
If all three survive the test, a consultation-led model is probably worth it, because a configured system is going to fight your situation. If one survives, you have one unusual requirement and the question becomes whether a standard platform can accommodate that single thing, which is a much cheaper question to answer.
What consultation genuinely buys
Three things, and they are real rather than a sales construct.
Somebody who has seen the failure modes before and will tell you which of your plans will not survive contact with a customs process. That knowledge is hard to acquire from documentation.
A design that accounts for your specific country mix rather than the average one. If your people sit somewhere most vendors handle by partner, the arrangement matters more than the feature set.
A relationship where exceptions get handled rather than rejected. Platforms tend to be good at the path they anticipated and poor outside it; a service relationship absorbs the exception.
What it costs you in exchange
Speed, mostly. A model where each step involves a conversation is slower than one where you do it yourself at eleven at night, and for teams that want to move quickly that friction is real.
Self-service, specifically. If your IT operations person wants to look something up rather than ask, a consultation-led arrangement puts a human in a loop they would rather not have.
And dependency. A designed arrangement lives partly in the heads of the people who designed it, which is fine until the account contact changes. Ask early how much of the design is written down somewhere you can read without asking, because the answer varies a lot between vendors who all describe themselves as consultative.
Pricing, and what is public
allwhere publishes no price. Its pricing route is a consultation, verified on its own site on 21 October 2026, which is consistent with the model rather than a gap in it: a designed arrangement genuinely cannot be listed.
RemoAsset publishes a Subscription tier from $1,499 a year for companies between 50 and 5,000 employees, and a pay-as-you-go tier below it for 5 to 50 with no published figure.
The honest observation is that these two publishing positions follow directly from the two models. A configured system can have a list price. A bespoke arrangement cannot, and demanding one from allwhere would be asking it to be a different kind of company.
Where RemoAsset is weaker
It enrols devices but is not an MDM in its own right, so endpoint management remains a separate product.
It wipes devices but is not a certified ITAD, so formal destruction certificates are a separate arrangement.
And on the axis this article is about, a configured system is by definition less accommodating of a genuinely unusual requirement than a designed one. If your situation really is the exception, that is a real limitation and allwhere’s model handles it better.
How to decide
Run the three-things test above before you take either call. It is free and it usually settles the question.
Count who would operate a system internally. If nobody has the hours, a consultative model is not a luxury, it is the only version that will actually work.
Ask allwhere what the arrangement looks like in month eighteen, after the design is done and the person who designed it has moved on. That is the question that tests the durability of the model.
Ask us what happens when your requirement is outside the configuration. That is the equivalent question in the other direction and you should ask it.
Does allwhere publish pricing?
No, and that follows from its model rather than being an omission. allwhere designs an arrangement around your situation, and a bespoke arrangement genuinely cannot carry a list price in the way a configured product can. Verified on its own site on 21 October 2026. The practical consequence is that comparing it on cost requires getting a real quote based on your actual requirements, and you cannot shortcut that with public information.
How do I know whether my situation is actually unusual?
Write down the three things you believe make it unusual and show the list to somebody outside your company who works in equipment logistics. Hiring across several countries, mixed operating systems, joiners outpacing deliveries and a drifted asset register all feel specific from the inside and are the ordinary shape of this problem. If all three survive that test, a consultative model is probably worth paying for. If only one does, ask whether a standard platform can accommodate that single requirement.
Is a consultative model slower?
Generally yes, and whether that matters depends on your team. A model where each step involves a conversation is slower than one where somebody configures it themselves outside working hours, and teams that want to move quickly find that friction real. Against that, the conversation is where somebody tells you which of your plans will not survive a customs process, which is knowledge that is hard to get from documentation. The trade is speed for judgement.
What should I ask about the relationship in the long run?
Ask what the arrangement looks like in month eighteen, after the design work is finished and the person who did it has changed roles. A designed arrangement lives partly in the knowledge of the people who built it, and the durability question is whether that knowledge is written down and transferable or whether it walks out with an account contact. Ask how the design is documented and who else can pick it up, because that answer tests the model rather than the product.
What does RemoAsset cost and what are its limits?
The Subscription tier starts at $1,499 a year for companies between 50 and 5,000 employees, with a pay-as-you-go tier below it for 5 to 50 carrying no published figure. Its stated limits are that it enrols devices without being an MDM in its own right, wipes devices without being a certified ITAD, and that coverage and lead times vary by market. It is our own product, so verify the figure against the pricing page rather than taking it from here.
Can a configured platform handle one unusual requirement?
Often, and that is the cheaper question to answer than whether your whole situation is exceptional. Describe the single requirement concretely to the vendor and ask whether it sits inside the configuration, requires a workaround, or genuinely is not supported. Those three answers have very different costs. Platforms tend to be good along the path they anticipated and poor outside it, so the useful thing is finding out precisely where your requirement falls relative to that path.
