Goodloading Alternative: What to Compare Before Switching

Goodloading is an established browser-based load planner, and many teams use it successfully. If you are looking at alternatives, compare them on the things that decide your daily work: how cargo gets in, which constraints are modelled, what the dock and driver receive, whether your existing files come across, and the yearly cost per planner. Test each candidate on your own loads, not a demo.

This article is a checklist for that comparison. For a feature-by-feature table between Goodloading and EveryLoading, with the date it was checked and links to Goodloading’s own FAQ, price list and manual, see our comparison of EveryLoading and other load planners. Product details change, so always confirm current terms on each vendor’s site.

Start with why you are looking

Switching tools costs time: retraining, re-creating vehicle settings, re-checking a few plans by hand. It is only worth it if a specific need is not met today. Write the reason down before you trial anything. Typical ones are price for the number of planners you have, speed of getting packing lists in, a feature your customers ask for, or simply wanting a second tool to compare plans against.

What to compare

How the two compare today

On the date of our load planner comparison (22 October 2026), Goodloading listed a 7-day paid trial, Excel input via file import in its PRO plan, import of its own CSV/XLSX templates, a loading sequence shown as an animation in the shared link, several vehicles in one plan including mixed types, axle loads for 2–3 axles in PRO, and multi-stop for one vehicle with at least 3 points.

EveryLoading starts with a free account, and Pro unlocks everything: pasting rows from Excel straight into the cargo table, import of Goodloading CSV/XLSX files, a loading sequence slider and play button in the editor, top/side/rear views with colour by stop or weight, several identical vehicles in one plan, a two-support axle estimate, and a stop number per row for any number of vehicles.

Run a fair side-by-side test

1. 1Pick three to five real loads from the last month: one simple full load, one with mixed pallet sizes, one with stacking rules, and one multi-drop if you do them.
2. 2Enter each load in both tools the way you would on a normal day, and time it.
3. 3Optimise with comparable settings: same vehicle inside dimensions and payload, same stacking and rotation rules.
4. 4Compare what was loaded, the loading metres used, and whether the arrangement is one your forklift drivers would actually build.
5. 5Print or share the plan from each tool and show it to a loader or driver. Ask which one they would rather work from.
6. 6Add up the yearly cost for the number of planners you actually have.

Say your team has three planners. Multiply each vendor’s yearly price per planner by three, check whether any feature you need sits in a higher tier, and compare that total with the time saved per load in your test. A tool that saves five minutes on each of 15 loads a day saves 75 minutes of planner time daily, which is usually worth more than the licence difference either way.

Moving your data across

The least painful switch is one where existing files come with you. EveryLoading reads the Goodloading CSV and XLSX templates (vehicle, sea container, air container, multistop and the older flat template) through the normal import in the cargo tab. Loads, stacking, rotation and stops come across, and the vehicle too if you want it. Settings it cannot model yet, such as wheel arches, cooling unit, Variofloor or door size, are listed after import so nothing disappears silently. The switching from Goodloading guide covers the details.

Making the decision

Choose on evidence from your own loads. If speed of data entry, the in-editor sequence, or price per planner matters to you, a switch can pay back quickly. For a broader buyer’s checklist, see what to look for in load planning software.