Mudo
Start free (opens in a new tab)

Mudo vs Asana

How Mudo differs from Asana for an architecture practice, argued on structure and pricing model rather than on invented weaknesses.

Asana is a mature work-management platform built around tasks, projects and portfolios. It is strong at coordinating work whose shape you define yourself.

What we are comparing

Asana is a general work-management platform. It is designed to be configured into whatever shape of work a team has, and it does that well.

Mudo is an operating system for one kind of practice. It is not configurable into a marketing team, and that is the point of it.

The structural difference

The question worth asking of any system you are evaluating is what happens when a programme stage moves.

In a configured general tool, a date changes, and the consequences, who is now free, which deliverables shift, which fee stage is claimable, when the cash arrives, are worked out by a person, later.

In Mudo those consequences are held by the model. That is the whole difference, and everything else on this site is a consequence of it.

Things Mudo has that a general platform does not attempt

These are architecture-specific by design, and each has its own page:

  • Staged fee proposals that become the project's fee structure on acceptance
  • Variations as commercial records that change what the practice is owed
  • RFI, issue, decision and deliverable registers with their own behaviour
  • Drawing sets, revisions and review, including computed revision deltas
  • Separate client, consultant and builder portals, reached without an account
  • An Archicad bridge keeping the model and the drawing register in step, currently in pilot
  • A practice-wide Brain as the default landing screen rather than a report

Pricing model

Asana is priced per user, per month, with tiers that unlock portfolio and reporting features. The cost of including everyone therefore rises with headcount.

Mudo is priced per practice, not per seat, in Australian dollars. Adding a person does not change the bill. The full breakdown is on the pricing page.

When the general platform is the better choice

If your practice does genuinely generic project work, if you need one system across disciplines that are not all architecture, or if you have an operations person who enjoys building and maintaining a configured system, a general platform may serve you better.

We would rather say that than pretend otherwise.

What we have deliberately not written

There is no feature-by-feature table on this page. Competitor features change too often for a table to stay true, and a comparison that is out of date is a comparison that misleads. Everything asserted above about Asana is limited to its category and its pricing model. Both are public, both are stable, and both are easy to verify.

Connected to this

  • How Mudo compares

    Honest comparisons between Mudo and the general work-management platforms architects most often evaluate, written without inventing weaknesses in other people's products.

  • Architecture practice management software

    What architecture practice management software is, what it has to handle that generic work tools do not, and how to judge whether a system is built for architects or configured for them.

  • Project management for architects

    How managing an architectural project differs from generic project management: stages, approvals, consultants, registers and drawings, and what a system needs to hold.

Try it on a real project

Start free (opens in a new tab)Book a demo

Free for solo practices: one user, two projects, no card.