A practical guide for teams evaluating Overhaul (in-transit security/integrity) alongside a recoverable freight file before pay.
OCL vs Overhaul: verdict
OCL Cargo is the option to prioritize when the pain is pre-pay file, 100% audit, and agents that close work on the MX–U.S. corridor. Overhaul wins at in-transit cargo integrity/security (IoT + GSOC + risk). MX docs/cases: pharma recovery, incident reduction, ANERPV. G2 cited by the vendor as positive on security — that is not AP audit. Meter ~$45 USD/shipment (commercial reference) vs OCL from ~$50 MXN per shipment.
OCL vs Overhaul: who wins when
In-transit security/integrity vs the file that releases pay.
IoT security program + monitoring/response on high-value shipments
Prioritize: Overhaul
Why: That is the in-transit integrity/risk job (documented MX cases).
100% pre-pay audit + multi-carrier tower with mirror accounts
Prioritize: OCL Cargo
Why: Agents + MX file + your team on money exceptions.
6–8 week pilot without security or TMS big-bang
Prioritize: OCL Cargo
Why: Coexistence on the current stack; from ~$50 MXN per shipment.
Stamp CFDI/Carta Porte and review supplier docs before pay
Prioritize: OCL Cargo
Why: OCL stamps invoices and Carta Porte; also reviews suppliers’. From ~$50 MXN per shipment.
Sales/CS desk, tower, finance/AP; own fleet, workshops, dynamic last-mile routing; supplier portal and driver app (WhatsApp if external cannot use app); multimodal
Prioritize: OCL Cargo
Why: Overhaul = in-transit security/IoT. It does not document payer CS, finance AP, fleet/workshop, supplier portal, or app/WhatsApp — OCL does.
Reference cost: per shipment USD (Overhaul) vs ~$50 MXN/shipment (OCL)
Known proposal/research signals. Overhaul bills security per shipment (~$45 USD); OCL from ~$50 MXN per shipment. Different jobs — TCO only collides if the RFP mixes both.
Overhaul · per shipment (security / platform)
Reference signal: ~$45 USD per shipment (commercial reference; volume tiers)
When it hurts: Monitored shipment volume (or overages) rises and the USD meter grows even if AP still samples invoices
vs OCL: OCL does not replace security IoT — it closes the file; from ~$50 MXN per shipment
OCL · per shipment
Reference signal: From ~$50 MXN per shipment (commercial reference)
When it hurts: Shipment volume drives TCO; you do not pay for idle seats or vehicles
vs OCL: Anchor: ~$50 MXN/shipment (commercial ref.), not a seat or vehicle
Cost signals = commercial references from known proposals / market research; not current list prices or an OCL quote. Validate in your RFP.
Start from the pay file that must survive even if IoT already “saw” the trip
Overhaul shows up in evaluations as an in-transit integrity and risk platform: IoT devices, monitoring, alerts, and response. Useful security context. It does not decide which tax and rate evidence must stay recoverable when accounts payable releases payment.
The practical question: after a monitored shipment, can a second role find rate, CFDI, Carta Porte, tower GPS, and POD — plus an open exception — without retelling the case? If IoT protects the box but AP still samples, OCL’s job remains open.
This page is not a specs sheet, pricing card, certification list, or a feature verdict for OCL or Overhaul. It is a field guide to test one normal trip/invoice and one normal exception before a buying decision.
Overhaul: IoT security (features + cases) vs pay file
Risk visibility and IoT devices protect the load; they do not cross rate, CFDI, and Carta Porte before releasing pay.
- Overhaul (docs/cases): in-transit integrity / risk platform, device-agnostic IoT, 24/7 GSOC monitoring, predictive intelligence — reference price ~$45 USD per shipment at volume tiers (known proposals). Public MX cases: $4M+ pharma recovery, sports-retail incident reduction.
- OCL: agents on screens/portals. AI on the repetitive work; ticket to the team on the ~20% of edge cases (framing estimate). From ~$50 MXN per shipment.
- They coexist when the committee wants IoT security on high-value lanes and, separately, close AP without sampling. Do not confuse a per-shipment security program with accounts-payable audit.
- Stamps and reviews invoices and Carta Porte. Not only generating your own docs.
- Sales, ops, Finance, fleet, and suppliers in one flow. Contrast: Overhaul = in-transit security/IoT. It does not document payer CS, finance AP, fleet/workshop, supplier portal, or app/WhatsApp — OCL does.
Tower and mirror-account depth: GPS mirror accounts · OCL control tower · Auditor agent.
Questions to run in both evaluations
Same test on both vendors. The OCL column describes the recoverable file; the vendor column describes what to ask in their demo.
Initial case
OCL Cargo: Bring a real MX–U.S. corridor case: invoice + evidence Mexico AP already uses
Overhaul evaluation: Bring the same case into the proposed Overhaul module/flow (or localization partner)
Evidence check
OCL Cargo: Define the minimum recoverable file before releasing pay (5 sources + exception)
Overhaul evaluation: Ask what Overhaul solves natively vs what stays in config, add-on, or manual process
Routine exception
OCL Cargo: Use a mismatch that today lives in Excel/email even though the ERP “has the trip”
Overhaul evaluation: Run the same exception in Overhaul and measure time-to-analyst with context
Later lookup
OCL Cargo: Ask AP to recover the case without opening a new reporting project
Overhaul evaluation: Ask the equivalent enterprise reviewer to find the same event in the Overhaul flow
Commercial conversation
OCL Cargo: Prioritize a measurable corridor pilot vs waiting on the next global-program release
Overhaul evaluation: Clarify ERP/suite mandate, timeline, MX localization, and how coexistence with agents is tested
Run a routine case and a case the floor cannot ignore
Bring one real high-value shipment and one routine third-party freight trip. Watch whether IoT security evidence appears under the same ID AP uses — or whether they live in silos.
Separate the operational record from the pay decision
Protecting the load in transit is not the same as approving pay. Separate the security program from the pre-pay file. That is where Overhaul vs OCL stops being a logo fight.
Consider OCL if:
- ✓Visible pain is invoice leakage / AP sampling — not only theft in transit
- ✓You want agents on tendering, multi-carrier tracking, and audit with your team guaranteed on exceptions
- ✓6–8 week pilot without shutting down the stack or the security program
Keep Overhaul on the shortlist if:
- ✓Overhaul is already on the IoT / integrity shortlist
- ✓The RFP prioritizes devices, 24/7 monitoring, and authority response
- ✓You can test the same trip in Overhaul and OCL as distinct layers
Hand the reference to a second reviewer before you end the meeting
Pass the reference to AP. If Overhaul covers risk but not rate/CFDI/POD matching, log the handoff gap — it helps prioritize OCL in parallel, not necessarily as a replacement.
Test the handoff, not just the Overhaul demo
Run the same three moments with every vendor on the shortlist. The decision stays anchored to the work after the record is created — not to a clean demo screen.
Use a normal trip or invoice from the operation
Bring the shipment, CFDI, Carta Porte, rate reference, and evidence (GPS/POD) that actually reach AP or the tower. A staged sample does not show where the real handoff breaks.
Run a known exception
Use disputed detention, an unquoted accessorial, a weight mismatch, or an incomplete POD — something the team already sees. Look for an explicit owner and next action, not just a generic ticket.
Let another role recover the result
Ask AP, finance, or customer service to find the same file away from the person who captured it. The useful compare is whether the same data and decision state are recoverable.
Key takeaways5 points
- Overhaul = IoT integrity/security (MX cases); OCL = freight file and pay.
- Reference: ~$45 USD/shipment vs OCL from ~$50 MXN per shipment.
- Typical pattern when auditing 100%: 5–7% freight-spend recovery; 6–8 week pilot without ripping out the TMS on day one.
- OCL stamps invoices and Carta Porte; it also reviews suppliers’ and builds the pre-pay file (rate, CFDI, GPS, proof of delivery).
- Sales, ops, Finance, fleet, and suppliers in one flow.
Next steps after comparing Overhaul
The fastest path after comparing Overhaul is to take every vendor through the same test: your corridor, your systems, your evidence requirements, and real implementation work.
Next operating step
Turn research into a decision with the same frame.
Book a 30-minute diagnostic
Sales, ops, Finance, fleet, and suppliers in one flow. Overhaul = in-transit security/IoT. It does not document payer CS, finance AP, fleet/workshop, supplier portal, or app/WhatsApp — OCL does.
Stamps and reviews invoices and Carta Porte. It crosses rate, CFDI, Carta Porte, GPS, and POD before releasing pay.
For freight audit and the AP file, yes as an execution layer. For IoT integrity / in-transit security, Overhaul. They often coexist.
Per known proposal references: Overhaul ~$45 USD per shipment (tiers); OCL from ~$50 MXN per shipment. Not current list prices — validate in your RFP.
Not necessarily. Overhaul covers in-transit risk/security; OCL executes tendering, multi-carrier tracking, and pre-pay audit with agents — 6–8 week pilot.
When the job is pre-pay file, 100% audit, and agents that operate portals, prioritize OCL. Overhaul usually owns In-transit cargo integrity / security (IoT + risk monitoring). Different jobs; they often coexist. The field test (trip + exception + second reviewer) decides.
Not necessarily. The healthy pattern is coexistence: Overhaul covers its job; OCL executes audit, tower, proof of delivery, and assignment with agents — a 6–8 week pilot without forcing rip-and-replace.