GeoNext Alternative: Your Second Migration in 2026

You already migrated once. That is the whole problem

Most GeoNext users did not choose GeoNext from a blank slate. They were GeoOp customers who moved onto it because it was the cleaner, mobile-first rework: simpler scheduling, quoting and invoicing, the same accounting integrations, and a low enough learning curve that field staff picked it up without training.

Then The Access Group acquired GeoOp and GeoNext in February 2025, closed new signups, and began sunsetting both. There is no roadmap, no new features, and a closing window to get your data out. So you are being asked to migrate a second time, and the official destination is Tradify.

Why a second forced migration deserves more scrutiny than the first

The recommended Tradify migration is not like-for-like. Users report extra admin, manual re-entry of job data, and workflows that are simply missing on the other side. That is a familiar cost if you went through the GeoOp to GeoNext move already, and it is the reason to evaluate properly rather than accept the default a second time.

Tradify is priced around 39 to 79 dollars per user per month and is self-serve in hours, which is genuinely good for a one to twenty person trade business. But it is built for very small teams. It strains past about 15 employees, customization does not extend much beyond packaged fields, and reporting and dispatch logic stay basic. If you are growing, you are choosing your next ceiling, not just your next tool.

What GeoNext got right, and what has to survive the move

GeoNext was a clean, mobile-first product for small trade teams with a low learning curve for field staff, and it kept the accounting integrations that AU and NZ trades depend on. Any replacement has to hold all three, because losing field-staff adoption is more expensive than any subscription.

The three things Fieldproxy does that GeoNext never did

Fieldproxy is an AI-first field service platform. The difference comes down to three things: AI agents that do the coordination work rather than just recording it, AI-driven customization so the software matches your process instead of the reverse, and the ability to change either yourself without paying for professional services.

AI agents for dispatch, quoting and customer comms

Fieldproxy ships voice and chat agents. You describe what needs to happen and the agent does it: build tomorrow's schedule across your technicians, reassign a sick tech's jobs and notify the affected customers, look up a part price and add it to a quote with your markup, work out which invoices are overdue and draft the chase-ups. You confirm, the agent does the clicking.

This goes well beyond GeoNext's feature set, and Tradify does not offer it either. In a small trade business the person dispatching, quoting and chasing payment is usually the owner, doing it after hours. That is exactly the work an agent removes.

Keep the workflows you built instead of starting over

Instead of choosing from packaged fields and form types, you describe the workflow change you want in plain English and the platform builds it. Think of it as Lovable for field service management. The job stages you actually use, the fields your team fills in, the checks required before a job closes, the way your quotes are structured. Those get built to match how you already work.

For a second-time migrator this is the decisive difference. The workflows you rebuilt when you moved from GeoOp to GeoNext get rebuilt as they are, rather than squeezed into a template that nearly fits.

Migration is done for you, not handed to you

Fieldproxy runs a free, assisted migration off GeoNext. Clients, jobs, quotes and invoices are imported for you, and the accounting integrations you rely on carry over, so your books do not become a manual re-entry project while you are also learning new software.

GeoNext vs Tradify vs Fieldproxy at a glance

Who should just take the Tradify migration

If you are a one or two person operation with straightforward jobs and no plan to add technicians, Tradify will probably serve you and the migration effort is the main cost. The case for looking wider is growth or complexity: more than a handful of technicians, workflows you cannot afford to lose, or reporting you actually use to make decisions.