AI Quantity Takeoff in Construction: The Gap Between Marketing Claims and Reality | BIM Takeoff
AI Quantity Takeoff in Construction
The Gap Between Marketing Claims and Reality
Why 97-98% accuracy claims require substantial professional oversight
The Promise vs. The Reality
AI-powered quantity takeoff software promises 80-90% time savings and 95-99% accuracy, but lacks independent validation and requires substantial manual correction. Industry professionals like Robert Kowalski are right to be skeptical—comprehensive research reveals that marketing claims significantly overstate capabilities, with actual time savings closer to 40-60% and accuracy heavily dependent on drawing quality.
As someone deeply embedded in the quantity surveying and estimation sector with 20 years of international experience, I’ve watched the rapid proliferation of AI-powered takeoff tools with both excitement and measured skepticism. After extensive research into vendor claims, user experiences, academic validation, and professional standards, the findings are clear: while AI quantity takeoff represents genuine technological progress, the gap between marketing promises and operational reality remains substantial.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) now mandates professional oversight of all AI outputs, acknowledging that automation cannot replace quantity surveyor expertise. While the technology shows genuine promise with 97-98% accuracy on ideal projects, no independent third-party benchmarks exist, all accuracy claims are vendor self-reported, and peer-reviewed academic validation is sparse.
The Current Market: Real AI vs. Rebranded Digital Tools
The construction takeoff software landscape divides into two distinct generations. Traditional digital tools like PlanSwift, Bluebeam Revu, and OnScreen Takeoff have dominated for 20 years but require extensive manual “click-and-trace” measurement. A new wave of AI-first platforms launched between 2022-2024—Togal.AI, Beam AI, Kreo Software, and Workpack—claims to automate 80-90% of the process using computer vision and deep learning.
The Leading Players
Togal.AI
Pioneered the market in 2022 with proprietary algorithms claiming 98% accuracy on floor plans. Their system automatically detects rooms, walls, doors, and windows using AIA measurement standards. However, they explicitly acknowledge limitations: irregular shapes may be removed inconsistently depending on plan quality, MEP and structural plans remain in development, and human review is still required. With approximately 1,000 users and three issued patents, Togal represents the most mature AI-first solution.
Beam AI
Takes a different approach as a “done-for-you” service rather than self-service software. Contractors upload plans and receive QA-checked takeoffs in 24-72 hours, with Beam claiming ±1% accuracy. Critically, this accuracy depends on human estimators reviewing every AI-generated takeoff—the automation isn’t truly autonomous. With $48 million in funding and over 1,100 companies using the platform, Beam serves high-volume contractors processing 500+ sheets annually.
Kreo Software
Claims “up to 98.5% accuracy” through their “Agentic Workflow” that autonomously reads blueprints and generates reports. The system learns from user data to create custom templates and handles complex calculations like multi-pitched roofs and multi-layered walls. Yet user reviews on Capterra reveal a different story: “Auto measure can be a little messy and I spend as much time organizing the data as I would have doing a normal takeoff.”
Traditional platforms like PlanSwift and Bluebeam have added limited AI features—PlanSwift remains primarily digital takeoff with drag-and-drop assemblies, while Procore acquired AI capabilities through purchasing Esticom and now offers “Automated Area Takeoff” using machine learning for room detection.
The Academic Validation Gap: Where’s the Evidence?
The most critical finding is a significant gap in peer-reviewed academic research specifically validating AI/ML accuracy for construction quantity takeoff. Most academic work focuses on BIM-based approaches (extracting quantities from pre-built 3D models) rather than AI analyzing 2D drawings. This represents a fundamental disconnect between commercial vendor claims and rigorous scientific validation.
The few relevant studies reveal important limitations:
A 2023 study in Nature Scientific Reports examined automated quantity takeoff in a Norwegian road project using BIM models—only 40% of 486 cost items could be automated, with reproducibility questionable and 70% of codes being project-specific.
A 2006 Brigham Young University thesis comparing BIM to on-screen takeoff found accuracy varied wildly by element: BIM showed 1% error for slab areas but 32% error for exterior brick, while traditional on-screen takeoff showed 3% to 46% error depending on the element.
Research on deep learning for component detection shows more promise but addresses only preliminary steps, not full quantity takeoff:
A 2020 MDPI study using YOLO-based detection achieved >80% accuracy detecting structural components from 2D drawings in 0.71 seconds per image.
Another 2020 study reported 91.6% accuracy for symbol recognition and 83.1% for character recognition in P&ID diagrams.
No comprehensive validation studies exist comparing AI versus manual takeoff across multiple project types with rigorous statistical analysis.
Accuracy Is Quality-Dependent and Project-Specific
AI accuracy depends heavily on source document quality and project type—a fact vendors often bury in fine print. The technology works best on clean, vector-based PDF drawings with clear symbols and standard conventions but struggles with scanned or poor-quality drawings, hand-marked or annotated plans, historic or mixed-format documents, blurry or low-resolution files, and non-standard symbols.
AI Performs Well
- New construction with clean BIM models
- Repetitive residential projects
- Standard commercial buildings
- Modern vector-based drawings
- Clear specifications
AI Commonly Fails
- Renovations with unclear existing conditions
- Complex custom designs
- Poor documentation or hand-drawn plans
- Historic buildings with scanned documents
- Projects requiring contextual judgment
User feedback consistently confirms this limitation. A Kreo reviewer stated: “Kreo works best with vector drawings and modern building floorplans.” Another noted that “each time you start and stop, a new condition is created” requiring manual consolidation, unlike OnScreen Takeoff which groups automatically.
Professional Standards: Why RICS Mandates Oversight
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors felt compelled to create mandatory standards specifically because of concerns about AI reliability. The RICS Global Standard on AI Use, effective March 2026, requires mandatory professional oversight of all AI outputs.
Key Requirements
Professional Oversight
AI outputs must be reviewed by qualified surveyors. Carys Rowlands, RICS Standards co-author, explained: “Our members are beginning to use AI day to day, and they’re using it sometimes in fairly significant ways.”
Risk Assessments
Written risk assessments for all AI use are mandatory. This includes documentation of limitations, validation procedures, and fallback processes when AI fails.
Dip-Sampling
Regular random review of AI-generated outputs is required to maintain quality standards and identify systematic errors.
Professional Skepticism
Applied throughout the process. Surveyors remain accountable for all work—AI doesn’t transfer liability.
Independent quantity surveying firms echo these concerns. A May 2025 article from Project Flux/Quantik stated:
“Many so-called AI solutions for quantity surveying offer little more than basic automation or rule-based systems dressed up with AI terminology. True AI systems demonstrate capabilities like learning from new data, adapting to novel situations, and improving performance over time—characteristics absent from many products currently marketed to quantity surveyors.”
The article identified widespread data skills gaps and “prompting problems” with quantity surveyors “approaching these sophisticated systems as they would a search engine.”
Comparing AI to Traditional Methods: Real Progress with Caveats
When comparing generations of takeoff technology, genuine improvements exist but fall short of marketing hype.
Technology Evolution: Three Generations
Traditional Manual
Time: 20-40 hours per project
Accuracy: Variable (5-10% error rate)
Process: Printed blueprints, scale rulers, calculators
Issue: Highly error-prone (88% of spreadsheets contain formula errors)
First-Gen Digital
Time: 5-10 hours per project
Accuracy: 2-5% error rate
Process: OnScreen Takeoff, PlanSwift
Benefit: 15x productivity boost over paper, digital measurement tools
Current AI-Powered
Time: 1-2 hours (review only)
Accuracy: ±1-2% with QA review
Process: Togal.AI, Beam AI, Kreo
Reality: Assumes clean drawings, doesn’t account for data organization time
Actual Productivity Gains Documented
Real benefits exist for realistic expectations:
- Contractors bidding 2-5x more projects without additional staff (genuine benefit)
- Saving 15-20 hours per week per estimator
- One case study showed a construction firm saving $1 million annually
- Time savings of 90 minutes per sheet independently verified
But the critical phrase is “with QA review”—without professional oversight, error rates increase significantly. The Brigham Young University study showed that even with BIM (predecessor to AI), accuracy varied from 1% to 32% depending on the building element measured.
Future Trajectory: Incremental Improvement, Not Perfection
Massive venture capital investment signals market confidence but also reveals realistic limitations. $3.7 billion flowed into construction technology through Q3 2025 (more than double 2024 levels), with AI-based technologies capturing $2.22 billion and 46% of Q1 2025 contech investment.
Notable Funding Rounds
Beam AI
$30.5M Series B (November 2025)
- Total funding: $48 million
- Serving 1,100+ companies
- Done-for-you service model
Trunk Tools
$20M Series A
- AI agents for construction productivity
- Focus on workflow automation
- Series A validation
Buildots
$15M Round
- Total funding: $121 million
- AI-driven construction management
- Computer vision technology
The market has moved from “speculative exuberance to strategic maturity,” with construction firms gravitating toward proven Series B+ startups rather than early-stage experiments.
Emerging Technologies
New technologies being applied include: - GPT-4 Vision integration (Togal.AI launched TogalGPT in 2023 for natural language queries) - Advanced computer vision with custom AI models trained on construction drawings - Machine learning systems improving accuracy by learning from previous projects - Specialized algorithms like TaksoAi’s patent-pending technology for HVAC and piping
Expert Predictions: Cautious Optimism
Jennifer Johnson, ConstructConnect CPO (ASPE Summit 2024), emphasized:
“AI will NOT replace jobs but free estimators from repetitive tasks, focusing on increasing productivity and helping ramp up new estimators more quickly.”
She described the goal as achieving “high degree of confidence in solutions with minimal checks”—note “minimal checks,” not “no checks.”
Heather Sonderquist, VP Construction Innovation at Jacobsen Construction, predicted “AI will continue to be the headliner” but emphasized the need for proper infrastructure, company policies with “right guard rails,” and “understanding data and identifying specific datasets that will make AI accurate and robust.”
The Optimal Approach: Augmentation, Not Replacement
Key Principles for Success
The optimal approach combines AI automation with professional oversight. The construction industry’s future involves:
Estimators as Data Analysts
Functioning as quality verifiers rather than manual measurers
AI for Structured Tasks
Handling repetitive measurements while humans focus on contextual judgment
Continuous Improvement
Systems learning from larger datasets as newer technologies like GPT-4 Vision mature
Evaluation Criteria for Professionals
When assessing AI takeoff tools, ask vendors about:
Critical Questions: 1. Accuracy rates on scanned or poor-quality drawings (not just clean PDFs) 2. Percentage of outputs requiring manual correction 3. Time spent on data cleanup and organization 4. Case studies of failed implementations (not just successes) 5. Specific training data used and validation methodology 6. Handling of non-standard symbols and conventions 7. Mandatory QA steps post-processing 8. Professional indemnity insurance implications
Red Flags to Watch For
Claims of 95-99% accuracy without caveats lack independent validation and apply only to ideal conditions. Terms like “fully automated” or “no manual work required” are warning signs—all systems require professional oversight.
The Bottom Line
Comprehensive Research Validates:
AI quantity takeoff software represents genuine technological progress but falls significantly short of marketing promises. Vendors claiming 80-90% time savings and 95-99% accuracy without caveats are overstating capabilities—actual time savings fall between 40-60%, substantial manual correction remains necessary, and accuracy depends heavily on drawing quality and project type.
The most damning findings: comprehensive third-party benchmark tests do not exist, peer-reviewed academic validation is sparse with no standardized testing methodologies, all accuracy claims are vendor self-reported without independent verification, and professional bodies like RICS now mandate human oversight specifically because of reliability concerns.
Yet genuine benefits exist for those with realistic expectations: productivity gains enabling 2-5x more bids without additional staff are documented, time savings of 40-60% on routine measurement tasks represent real value, and accuracy of 97-98% on ideal projects exceeds manual methods.
For Robert Kowalski and other quantity surveyors experiencing disappointment with AI takeoff tools, the issue isn’t fundamental tool failure but rather inflated marketing creating unrealistic expectations. The technology works—but requires professional expertise to validate, correct, and interpret outputs. Those treating AI as a productivity tool within a professional workflow achieve genuine benefits. Those expecting “set it and forget it” automation will continue to be disappointed.
The sweet spot, as industry experts consistently note, lies in synergizing AI’s computational speed with human judgment, experience, and contextual understanding—a partnership between technology and expertise rather than technology replacing expertise.
Need Professional Quantity Surveying?
BIM Takeoff delivers the accuracy of professional expertise enhanced by AI-powered BIM 5D technology. We understand both the capabilities and limitations of automation.
Professional Validation of All Outputs
±3-5% Accuracy with Human Oversight
20 Years International Experience