Konstata or osapiens: choosing EUDR software for coffee

We build one of these. Konstata is EUDR compliance software for green coffee, so treat this as an informed view rather than a neutral one. Everything stated below about osapiens comes from their own published material, and the cases where they are the better choice are listed as plainly as the cases where we are.

What each one is

osapiens describes the osapiens HUB as a platform to automate due diligence, supply-chain traceability and reporting, with EUDR as one module alongside others covering packaging, PFAS, digital product passports and product carbon footprint. Their EUDR pages describe an automated risk-assessment engine combining satellite-based deforestation checks with legality analysis, automated creation of due-diligence statements, integration with TRACES, and a no-code workflow builder. They state deforestation analysis at plot level across more than 80 million hectares, and cite 2,500 companies across all industries.

Konstata does EUDR due diligence for green coffee and nothing else. One regulation, one crop: plot intake from cooperatives, live screening on real coordinates, the legality record per producer, the Article 10 determination, and the statement.

The comparison that actually matters

When osapiens is the better answer

This is the part most vendor comparison pages leave out, so here it is first.

• You source several of the seven commodities. Coffee plus cocoa plus palm in one group is a platform problem, not a specialist one. Konstata covers coffee; the rest would need a second system.
• EUDR is one of several regulations on your roadmap. If CSRD, packaging, PFAS or the digital product passport are also coming, consolidating them with one vendor is a reasonable strategy, and specialist tools work against it.
• You need deep ERP integration across a large organisation. A configurable platform with a workflow builder is designed for exactly that. A specialist tool is not.
• Procurement requires a large, established vendor. That is a legitimate constraint and it is not one we meet.

When a coffee-specialised system is the better answer

• Your verdicts have to survive an argument. Coffee grows under shade trees, and pruning, replanting and shade management all read as tree-cover loss in a satellite signal. What matters is whether the loss landed on land that was forest at the cutoff. That is the judgement Konstata is built around.
• Your supply runs through cooperatives. Thousands of member parcels, no digital records, and a collection window bounded by the harvest. That is a data-collection problem before it is a software problem.
• Article 2(6) matters to you. Agroforestry systems where crops grow under tree cover are excluded from the definition of forest. A generic reading of canopy data does not apply that exclusion on its own.
• You want the reasoning written down. Every verdict carries the decision trail behind it, because an undocumented correct conclusion is worth nothing in an inspection.

Both are worth less than your plot data. Whichever you choose, the constraint that decides whether you make 30 December 2026 is getting coordinates out of your suppliers, and no software shortens that. If you are picking a vendor in October and have not started collecting geolocation, the vendor is not your problem.

Questions to ask either vendor

1. 1.Show me a plot where the screening was wrong, and what happened next. Any honest system produces false positives on perennial crops. What matters is whether the tool helps a person resolve them or just fails the plot.
2. 2.What exactly does the auditor see? Ask for the export a competent authority would receive, on real data, not a slide.
3. 3.Where does the deforestation verdict come from? Which datasets, which forest baseline, and what happens when two datasets disagree.
4. 4.How does supplier data get in? If the answer is a spreadsheet template, ask what happens with two thousand smallholders and no email addresses.
5. 5.What happens when scope changes again? Annex I moved in July 2026. Ask how the last change was handled and how quickly.

Sources for the statements about osapiens above: their EUDR solution pages at osapiens.com, read on 2 August 2026. Product claims change; verify the current position with the vendor before deciding.