01 / SAMPLE
Choose five real jobs
Use the included trial on a mix of straightforward and complex inspections.
Workflow comparison
A photo archive documents the job. A report explains it.
RoofScore sits between a bare gallery link and a slow, manually assembled document. The goal is consistent communication—not replacing the roofer who climbed the roof.
Side by side
Choose based on the customer experience you need.
| Capability | RoofScore Pro | Photo link only | Manual document |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo-referenced observations | Built into the generated report | Photos require the customer to interpret them | Possible when the author adds them |
| Consistent scorecard and sections | One repeatable structure | No report structure | Depends on the author and template |
| Company and rep branding | On every report, trial included | Limited to gallery presentation | Possible with manual setup |
| Owner activity visibility | Reports-per-rep view | Not a reporting control | Requires separate tracking |
| Time to first draft | Automated after upload and analysis | Immediate link, but no explanation | Depends on manual writing and layout |
| Professional judgment | Still required | Still required | Still required |
RoofScore is the right fit when your team already captures the evidence but needs a consistent way to explain it. It is not a substitute for field judgment, engineering, code inspection, or an insurer’s coverage decision.
A practical pilot
Measure the workflow before you standardize it.
02 / REVIEW
Check every observation
Have the inspecting rep confirm photo references, priorities, and limitations before delivery.
03 / DECIDE
Compare the handoff
Measure time spent, customer questions, and whether the report was actually delivered.