Lenel vs Software House Markups Analyzed

By Brian Rhodes, Published Oct 14, 2016, 08:55am EDT

This note breaks down and contrasts the markups between two big access brands: Lenel (OnGuard) versus Software House (C-Cure). Our analysis of dealer markup survey data reveals interesting trends and differences in profitability and competitive performance.

Markup Comparisons

The average markups are:

  • Lenel OnGuard: ~25 - 35%
  • Software House CCure: ~30% - 50%

While markup percentages may overlap, Software House markups generally trended higher. These differences in markups do not mean enduser/resell pricing is dramatically different, but the profits respective dealers take may be.

Inside this note, we examine product differences, cost comparisons, and detailed integrator feedback on Lenel and Software House.

Markup *******

** ***** ** *** ******* / ******* ********, **** ********** ** calculated/defined **:

****** ********** = ***** Sold - ***** **** / ***** ****

** *** ****** ** **%, then * **** **** costs $*** ** ****** with ****** ***** *** labor ** ****** ** $675.

Component ***** *******

** ***** ** *** much ***** ****** ** ********* per ******, **** ********* have ******** (**:**** ***********, ******, *** */* *******) and********** ******** ********. ***** ** ***** both ******** ** **** a *********** ******, * 'project' ******** *******, *** marking **, **** ** these ***** *** ********.

*** ******* ******* ********* with ***** ** ******** House *** ** **** the **** $*** - $500 *** ******* *****, with ********* *** **** type ** ********, *****, sensors, *******, *** ***** effort ******** *** ******.

Product *********** 

*******, * *** ********** ******* companies ** ** *** hardware ****** *****.

***** ******** ***** ***** both *********** ******** (***** ***********) *** ******** ******** and ******** *********** ** the *******,***** ** * ******* Security *********** **** *** ******* standard ******* ******** *** focuses ******* ** ******** development *** *******.

** *******, *** ******** on *** ***** ******** results ** ********* ***** competition **** ***** ******* based ****** ******** ****** and ********* *** **** parts, *** **** ************** or ********** ******* ** manufacturing, ***********, *** ******* costs ** **** ********.

*******, ***** ****** **** factory-supported ************ **** ******** House, *** ** ******* system *** ********** ***** out ****** **** * similarly ***** ***** ****** once *** ********** *********** modules *** ******** *** purchased.

Cost ************

****** *** *********** ********** in ******** ******** *** development, **** ***** *** Software ***** ***** ****** ground ********* *******:

  • **** *** ****** ******* lines **** **** ******* price *****, *** *** have ****** ******** ******* and ***** *******.
  • **** *** ***** ******* in *** ****** ********** like*** **** *** ********** ********* *** much ******* *** ****** their ********.
  • **** ******* *** *********, they ********* ****** ** service *** *******. ******* system ******** ** ***, both ********* ******* ******* revenues ** **** ** maintenance **********.

Head ** **** ***********

**** ********* ***** ******* market ********** *** ******* at *** ****-*** ** the ****** ******, **** many ***** *****-**** *** even ************* *******. ** covered **** ********* ** detail ** ********* ******* ******. *** ********** ****** are ********* *****:

*****

** ***** ** *** ***** ****** ******* ******* Profile:

******** *****

** ***** ** *** ******** ***** ****** ******* Company *******:

** *******, *** ******* difference ******* ********* ** hardware, ***** ******** ***** is *********** *** ***** uses *** ***** ********. In *******, ***** ******** pricing *** **** *** be ********* **** ******** House **** ********* "**** Servers" *** **** ****** Lenel's ******** ** *******, but ******* *** ********, door ***********/******, *** ******* is ***** ** ****.

Lenel Markups ********** ********

************, *********** ******* **** Lenel reported ******* ** *** 20% - **% *****, with *** ***** **%. Comments ********:

  • "[*** *****] ** ******* about **%".
  • "** ***** **** ** see * **% ******. Depending ** *** **** of *** ******* *** the ********, ** ***** a ********* **** **** relationship, ** ***** **** down **** **%-**% ******."
  • "** *** *** *******, we *** **%"
  • "**% *** **** ****. *** competitive ********* *** ******** margins ******* **** ****."
  • "******* *** ****** ** around **%."
  • "*** *****, *** ******* 35% ****** **** **** depending **** ****** ** systems, ****** ** ******* installed ********* **********."

Software ***** ******* ********** ********

** ********, ******** ***** ****** markups ****** ** ** higher **** ***** ****, with **** ********* **% - **%, *** **** trending **** ******. ******** included:

  • "** **** ********** ********* with *** ********* ***** means ******** **% ******* on *********."
  • "***** ******* **** **** 35-55% ** ******"
  • "**%, ********* ***** ** be ***********"
  • "*** ******* **** ** is **%. **** *** remained ****** ********, ******** only *** *** ****** (50+ ****) ****."
  • "*** **-**% ****** *** remained ****** ********."

Maintenance ********* **********

** *******, ******* ** recurring *** ********* ******** agreements ** ******* **** of ********** * ******, but ** *** ********* for ** ****** *******. *** ******'* ****** *** either ** ***** *** typical **** *****, ****** digit *********** ** * straight ****-******* **** ** the *** ****, **** the **** ** ******** coming **** ********** ***** or ******* ******* ** *** ******.

*****'* ********* ****** ******** ******* Agreement (***) ****** **** ~$300 *** ***** ******* with *** *********** ******* to ~$**,***+ *** ********** versions. *** *********** ***-******* upgrades *** ******* ***** are ******* ** *** SUP, *** ** ** the ********** ******'* ********** to ******* ******* ******* an ***.

******** *****'* ********* ******* ******** *********** ******* generally **** ***** ******* 20% - **% ** the ***** ***** ** a ******'* ******** ********, as ****** ** $** for ***** ******* **** ~ * *****, ******* of $**,*** *** *****, multisite, ** ******* ********** systems.  ** **** *****, this ********* **** ** valid ** ***** ** receive ********* ******** ******** and ******* **** ******* technicians.

Market *******

** ******* **** ******* aside, **** ********* **** tangible ******* ******** **** increasing ***********. ******* **** the ********* ***** *******, *** ******* ******** *********** *****, **** ***** *** Software ***** ********* **** themselves ******* **** ******* not ******* ** ***** offerings.

*******, *** *** ******** interoperability ********** ***** ** Software ***** *******' *****. Despite *** **** '****-**' being ** ********* ****** in ******** **** ****** platform, *** **** ** changing **** * ***** system ** **** *********, due ** ** ****** population ** ********** ********* that *** ****-**** ******** as *********.

**** ******** ***** ***** strictly ***********, *** ***** of * ****** *********** equal *** ******** ** entirely *** ********, ***** can *** ******** *** opening **** ** * takeover ******* (*.*., *** new ******* ***** *******) *** ****.

Comments (7)

Undisclosed #1

IPVMU Certified | 10/15/16 04:00pm

Totalling the scorecards gives Lenel a marginal edge over SH*, yet from the standpoint of the dealer at least, SH seems more attractive.

  1. Equally competitive on price
  2. Better margins
  3. More lock-in

Lenel might be easier to sell since it is more open, but I'm not sure how important that is in these types of systems.

Is it easier to become a Lenel dealer, perhaps?

*6 Greens, 3 Reds, 0 Yellows vs 6 Greens, 2 Reds, 1 Yellow

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Scot MacTaggart

10/16/16 04:04pm

This is useful information. I'd really like to know how they compare in terms of customer satisfaction and ease of use though, especially against other enterprise systems. I know it's hard to set up that kind of testing with end users, but without taking the complete user experience into consideration, it's hard to determine value.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Ryan Butler

10/19/16 12:17pm

One access control company that always seems to get ignored is Kantech (manufacture their own hardware). Tyco has owned and operated two seemingly competitive access control companies Kantech and Software House. I wonder if the Johnson Controls merger will change this and they can work on development of just one platform.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Brian Rhodes

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Ryan Butler | 10/19/16 04:55pm

Kantech isn't ignored. For example, see: Tyco Kantech Access Control Company Profile.

One big structural difference is that Software House is a dealer-only offering, but Kantech is widely available through distribution. While CCure is often used in large, high-end deployments, Kantech is suited for smaller, more basic access systems.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Ethan Ace

IPVM | In reply to Ryan Butler | 10/19/16 04:58pm

The Tyco Kantech/Software House issue is similar to the Honeywell WinPak/Pro-Watch line up, also. One distribution line, one dealer line. Ingersoll Rand used to be the same way also when they had their enterprise line which was dealer, and then Bright Blue through distro.

It seems to be getting less common, though.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Brian Havekost

10/20/16 02:11pm

I work for a company that is a dealer for both Lenel and Software House.

This is a good comparison. The point of open hardware being one of the bigger differences is true.

The good part of open hardware is that the end user can switch to another software platform if they get frustrated with Lenel. The good part of proprietary hardware, as Software House has shown, is that they control the hardware development and are able to bring hardware enhancement to market more quickly.

I support small, medium, and large systems on both platforms. Each product and each manufacturer has good points and issues. One of the prime determining factors should be the functionality that the customer, the end user, needs and the capability of the dealer to deliver and support a system that functions in the manner that the customer expects.

Point - the software support agreement for a small Lenel system is in line with the Software House support costs. Throwing in the cost of software enhancements isn't a reasonable comparison unless you add those costs into the Software House side.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #2

06/20/20 03:36am

SWH > LENEL - - - - - - GGS!!!! !!! !!! Nailed It!

Enter 2020, let us re-evaluate!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,890 reports, 921 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports