Compare CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal vs Navis N4 TOS for terminal operations across vessel, yard, gate, equipment, automation/integration, deployment, evidence coverage and known research gaps.
TechSelectAI compares CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal and Navis N4 TOS using recorded product evidence rather than user-specific recommendation scoring. CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal currently has 11 supported, 24 conditional, 53 unknown/not-yet-verified, and 0 not-supported capabilities. Navis N4 TOS currently has 17 supported, 29 conditional, 42 unknown/not-yet-verified, and 0 not-supported capabilities. Known-fact confidence is 97% for CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal and 98% for Navis N4 TOS. Latest recorded review or verification activity across the comparison: Sep 19, 2026.
This summary reflects recorded TechSelectAI evidence only. It is separate from buyer-specific Fit Score, Evidence Confidence, TechSelectAI Verified Reviews and Public Review Intelligence. Unknown means not yet verified, not unsupported.
Integrated container terminal operating system for berth, vessel, yard, gate, rail and equipment operations with optimization and semi-to-fully automated terminal support.
Navis N4 terminal operating system from Kaleris for complex container terminals, covering planning, execution, automation integration, optimization, operational visibility and enterprise terminal workflows.
Different coverage percentages can reflect how much TechSelectAI has researched and verified, not which product is better. “Research pending” means the current evidence set is incomplete; it is not evidence that the product lacks the capability.
This summarizes the current evidence record by operational module. Known counts include supported and conditional facts. Pending counts are research gaps, not negative capability findings.
| TOS operational module | CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal | Navis N4 TOS |
|---|---|---|
| Billing, Analytics & Operational Control | 6 / 9 known5 conditional · 3 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 9 / 9 known5 conditional · 0 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Equipment Dispatch & Automation | 8 / 10 known5 conditional · 2 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 8 / 10 known4 conditional · 2 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Gate, Truck & Landside Operations | 3 / 11 known2 conditional · 8 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 6 / 11 known5 conditional · 5 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Integration, Data & Ecosystem | 4 / 11 known2 conditional · 7 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 5 / 11 known2 conditional · 6 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Platform Architecture, Resilience & Security | 1 / 8 known0 conditional · 7 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 5 / 8 known2 conditional · 3 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Rail & Intermodal Operations | 2 / 7 known1 conditional · 5 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 0 / 7 known0 conditional · 7 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Reefer, DG & Special Cargo | 0 / 7 known0 conditional · 7 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 2 / 7 known2 conditional · 5 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Vessel & Berth Planning | 6 / 11 known5 conditional · 5 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 5 / 11 known4 conditional · 6 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
| Yard Strategy & Inventory | 5 / 11 known4 conditional · 6 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported | 6 / 11 known5 conditional · 5 research pending · 0 explicitly unsupported |
The links below are the most recently checked verified sources in this comparison dataset. Source recency and confidence describe the research record; they do not establish a universal product ranking.
Status and confidence reflect recorded evidence. Unknown means not yet verified, not unsupported. In the summary above, TechSelectAI labels this state “research pending”.
| Capability | CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal | Navis N4 TOS |
|---|---|---|
| Billing / tariff / financial integrationBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Supported97% confidenceKaleris documents capture of billable terminal events and N4 billing/invoicing; detailed tariff scope depends on implementation. |
| Customer self-service portalBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported96% confidenceA multi-terminal N4 implementation gives customers real-time access to cargo information and online work orders; packaging and portal scope are implementation-dependent. |
| Operational audit historyBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Partially Supported95% confidenceOPUS Terminal's container intelligent management explicitly uses container history and configurable reports/search, providing operational-history evidence without establishing a complete immutable audit trail for all terminal changes. | Partially Supported95% confidenceA live N4 dry-port implementation explicitly cites event monitoring and reporting, but the reviewed public material does not establish a complete immutable audit history for all operational changes. |
| Operational visibility, analytics & KPIsBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Partially Supported95% confidenceOPUS Terminal includes operation analysis and simulation; richer digital-twin visualization/analytics may use the separate OPUS DigiPort product and is not treated as universally included. | Supported98% confidenceKaleris documents real-time operational data, productivity KPIs, control-room visibility and decision-support optimization. |
| Productivity & equipment KPIsBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Partially Supported96% confidenceOPUS Terminal includes operation analysis, configurable reports and productivity-oriented decision support, while richer real-time KPI dashboards and digital-twin analytics are documented under the separate OPUS DigiPort product. | Supported97% confidenceKaleris documents N4 real-time operational visibility and performance/productivity insights used to improve terminal execution. |
| Shift / control-room dashboardBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Partially Supported96% confidenceCyberLogitec states that OPUS Terminal provides planning, operation, monitoring and dashboards, but richer real-time visualization and digital-twin analytics are separately associated with OPUS DigiPort and are not attributed to base OPUS Terminal. | Supported98% confidenceN4 Control Room centralizes operational views and functions used to monitor and maintain terminal operations. |
| Simulation / what-if analysisBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Supported99% confidenceOPUS Terminal explicitly provides operation simulation for task workload and yard location using automated planning information, including workload estimation by time, block and equipment. | Partially Supported96% confidenceYard Intelligence evaluates alternative scenarios and recommends pre-emptive moves, but it is an advanced optimization suite rather than universal base-N4 functionality. |
| Storage, tariff & service billingBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported97% confidenceN4 captures billable events and invoices and supports granular billable tasks, but the reviewed evidence does not establish universal storage/tariff configuration depth for every deployment. |
| Volume / workload forecastingBilling, Analytics & Operational Control | Partially Supported95% confidenceOPUS Terminal simulation estimates future workload by time, block and equipment, but broader container-volume, labor or resource-demand forecasting is not established; AI prediction functions are documented separately in OPUS DigiPort. | Partially Supported96% confidenceYard Intelligence anticipates congestion and yard imbalances hours in advance; broader volume/resource-demand forecasting is not inferred beyond the documented yard scope. |
| AGV / ASC automated-equipment integrationEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Supported99% confidenceCyberLogitec documents OPUS Terminal interfacing automated equipment control systems in projects using AGVs and automated rail-mounted gantry cranes, supporting operational planning and field execution. | Supported98% confidenceKaleris states N4 automation supports automated stacking cranes, AGVs and auto-trucks and coordinates automated yard, transport, quay and gate execution through ECS integration. |
| Equipment dispatch & controlEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Supported99% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents optimized equipment workload execution and unified equipment operations across terminal layouts. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents PrimeRoute, RTG/RMG optimization and VMT workflows for terminal handling equipment dispatch and execution. |
| Equipment position trackingEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Partially Supported96% confidenceReal-time container and vehicle location tracking is documented in the DGT implementation, but that deployment also uses TLC and the separate OPUS DigiPort IoT/data platform; native OPUS Terminal-only scope is not assumed. | Supported98% confidenceN4 Control Room visualizes where containers, cranes and trucks are in the yard, providing equipment/location visibility for operational control. |
| Equipment status & downtime awarenessEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Job pooling & dispatch optimizationEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Partially Supported98% confidenceCyberLogitec states the TLC module optimizes overall terminal workload and equipment/yard work orders; TLC module entitlement is not assumed as universal base OPUS Terminal entitlement. | Partially Supported98% confidenceKaleris Advanced Optimization continuously evaluates crane, truck and yard tasks to determine the next best move; these optimization products complement N4 and are not assumed base entitlement. |
| Quay crane job executionEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Partially Supported96% confidenceAutomated-terminal implementations prepare work plans, assign equipment and manage real-time allocation including double-trolley quay cranes; exact QC work-queue entitlement depends on the implemented OPUS/TLC stack. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| RTG / RMG dispatch & work queuesEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Partially Supported97% confidenceCyberLogitec documents ARMGC operations with OPUS Terminal, TLC and the automation stack; RTG/RMG dispatch is therefore evidenced at implementation/module level rather than assumed as identical universal base-product scope. | Partially Supported99% confidenceKaleris RTG Optimization and N4 resource-planning workflows optimize yard-crane work, but RTG Optimization is an advanced add-on rather than assumed in every N4 deployment. |
| Terminal automation / ECS integrationEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Supported99% confidenceCyberLogitec documents OPUS Terminal integration with automated equipment control systems and semi-to-fully automated terminal operations. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents N4 coordination of automated yard, transport, quay and gate operations through ECS integration for semi- and fully automated terminals. |
| Terminal tractor / straddle dispatchEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Partially Supported95% confidenceOPUS Terminal/TLC optimizes terminal equipment workload and DGT uses real-time vehicle location and job allocation, but straddle-carrier-specific dispatch is not established by the reviewed evidence. | Partially Supported98% confidenceTerminal Truck Optimization and PrimeRoute optimize terminal-truck dispatch using N4 data; straddle-carrier-specific dispatch depth is not generalized from truck evidence. |
| VMT mobile work instructionsEquipment Dispatch & Automation | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported98% confidenceKaleris documents an N4 Vehicle Mounted Terminal interface for RTG/RMG drivers, but VMT availability is a specific N4 application/module rather than assumed universal entitlement. |
| Automated gate lane orchestrationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Partially Supported96% confidenceCyberLogitec documents OPUS Terminal managing gate operations in automated-terminal projects, but public evidence does not enumerate kiosk, barrier, scale and lane-device orchestration as universal base functionality. | Partially Supported97% confidenceN4 is documented orchestrating automated gate traffic in a live implementation, but the exact lane-device stack is project-specific and should not be treated as universal native hardware control. |
| Driver identification & authorizationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Gate & truck operationsGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Supported99% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents terminal workloads covering vessel, rail and gate operations and integrated trucking-company workflows. | Supported98% confidenceKaleris documents terminal execution across the gate and truck workflows; exact optional optimization modules should be validated for the selected N4 package. |
| Gate customs / line / terminal holdsGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Gate OCR / ANPR integrationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Partially Supported96% confidenceA production OPUS Terminal deployment at Tecon Santos supports OCR-enabled terminal equipment and digital technologies; ANPR scope and the distinction between native recognition and integrated subsystems are not established. | Partially Supported96% confidenceA documented N4 terminal implementation integrates automated gate OCR and license-plate recognition. This is evidence of integration, not proof that N4 itself is the native OCR/ANPR engine. |
| Interchange / EIR processingGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Pre-gate & out-gate validationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Truck appointment integrationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Truck pre-advice & booking validationGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceBaltic Container Terminal used N4 to completely incorporate its pre-booking system, establishing proven pre-booking integration without proving that a universal native booking module is included in every N4 deployment. |
| Truck turn-time & queue monitoringGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported97% confidenceKaleris documents materially reduced gate/truck turn times after N4 implementation at BCT and Caacupe-mi, but the public evidence does not separately establish a universal native queue-management or turn-time analytics module. |
| Weighbridge & VGM workflowsGate, Truck & Landside Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported97% confidenceA live N4 implementation links container weighing systems to N4 for SOLAS VGM compliance. Universal weighbridge hardware/protocol coverage is not inferred. |
| Carrier booking & release integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Partially Supported94% confidenceCyberLogitec explicitly documents shipping-carrier integration, but booking, release and carrier-message transaction depth is not enumerated in the reviewed public material. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| CODECO / COARRI EDI messagingIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| COPARN / COPRAR EDI messagingIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| EDI, APIs & external-system integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Supported98% confidenceCyberLogitec documents integration with automated equipment, carriers, port authorities and trucking companies, including EDI-driven terminal data and interfaces. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents robust EDI and API integration for container terminal cargo and external systems/data streams. |
| ERP / finance integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceAt Riyadh Dry Port, the SAP Billing module explicitly retrieves data from N4. This proves a live ERP/finance integration while not establishing a universal SAP or ERP connector catalogue. |
| Event / webhook / streaming integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported98% confidenceKaleris documents Kafka-based messaging enhancements in N4 4.0, establishing event-streaming capability; webhook support is not separately established by the reviewed public evidence. |
| Gate / OCR subsystem integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Supported97% confidenceTecon Santos documents OPUS Terminal integration with OCR-enabled operational technology; exact OCR vendor adapters and project topology remain implementation-specific. | Supported98% confidenceKaleris documents N4 integration with automated gate OCR/license-plate recognition and traffic-flow systems in production terminal operations. |
| MOVINS / BAPLIE vessel messagingIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| PCS / customs / authority integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Partially Supported94% confidenceOPUS Terminal explicitly supports integration with port authorities, but the reviewed material does not establish universal Port Community System or customs-interface coverage. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Reefer monitoring system integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| REST / web-service API integrationIntegration, Data & Ecosystem | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Supported99% confidenceKaleris explicitly documents robust API integration for N4 with external systems and data streams. |
| Android mobile applicationMobile Access | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · native_android_appMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · native_android_appMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. |
| iOS mobile applicationMobile Access | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · native_ios_appMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · native_ios_appMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. |
| Mobile web accessMobile Access | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · mobile_webMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence · mobile_webMobile availability has not yet been verified from first-party evidence. |
| BCP / degraded or offline operationsPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Cloud / on-prem deployment flexibilityPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Supported98% confidenceKaleris explicitly discusses N4 4.0 for existing on-premises customers and cloud adoption, supporting more than one enterprise deployment pattern. |
| Disaster recovery & RPO/RTO controlsPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceRiyadh Dry Port documented a backup site, replicated N4 data and successful continuity with no data loss during a major outage, establishing demonstrated DR capability while keeping the implementation architecture project-specific. |
| High availability architecturePlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceRiyadh Dry Port operated N4 across primary and secondary data centers with synchronized and replicated data and maintained N4 service through a major power outage; the HA architecture was customer-designed and is not assumed as universal product topology. |
| Multi-terminal / multi-site operationPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Supported98% confidenceTransnet documents operating multiple terminals on a single N4 system while standardizing processes across the terminal network. |
| RBAC / SSO / enterprise identityPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Security & administrative audit loggingPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Throughput & scale for large terminalsPlatform Architecture, Resilience & Security | Supported99% confidenceCyberLogitec states OPUS Terminal has verified operational performance in a mega-size fully automated terminal of approximately 10 million TEU annual volume. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris states N4 4.0 scales to very large container-terminal volumes, including published capacity up to 16 million TEU. |
| Rail / intermodal operationsRail & Intermodal Operations | Supported98% confidenceOPUS Terminal explicitly documents optimized work orders across vessel, rail and gate entry/exit workflows. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Rail crane work queuesRail & Intermodal Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Rail interchange eventsRail & Intermodal Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Rail load / discharge planningRail & Intermodal Operations | Partially Supported97% confidenceThe TLC module explicitly optimizes entry-exit container work involving rail, but detailed train, wagon and rail-crane planning scope is not established. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Rail-yard inventory visibilityRail & Intermodal Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Train schedule & service managementRail & Intermodal Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Wagon / consist planningRail & Intermodal Operations | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Container weight / VGM controlReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported97% confidenceN4 has documented SOLAS VGM compliance through integration with container weighing systems in a live terminal; exact VGM workflow depth can vary by implementation. |
| Damage & inspection workflowReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Dangerous-goods segregation controlsReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| OOG & special-equipment handlingReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Reefer plug / unplug workflowReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Reefer temperature & alarm integrationReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Reefer, dangerous goods & special cargo controlsReefer, DG & Special Cargo | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported94% confidenceExpert Decking explicitly applies yard-planning logic to reefer containers, but the reviewed N4 evidence does not yet establish full dangerous-goods, OOG and reefer-service control as one universal capability. |
| BAPLIE import / exportVessel & Berth Planning | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Berth window & berth allocation schedulingVessel & Berth Planning | Partially Supported97% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents automated berth planning, but the reviewed public evidence does not establish a dedicated berth-window scheduling workflow or conflict-management depth. | Partially Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents Berth Window Manager deployed within the N4 optimization stack. Treat it as an optional/advanced planning module rather than universal base-N4 entitlement. |
| Carrier vessel-plan collaborationVessel & Berth Planning | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported95% confidenceA Kaleris N4 implementation documents stronger collaboration with shipping-line stowage coordinators around vessel and crane workplans; universal collaboration tooling is not inferred. |
| Discharge / load sequencingVessel & Berth Planning | Partially Supported97% confidenceA CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal Advanced Module implementation at Pusan Newport Company explicitly improves planning for container loading and unloading, but the public material does not enumerate a complete vessel load/discharge sequencing model or universal base entitlement. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Quay crane split planningVessel & Berth Planning | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported95% confidenceKSSP deployed Quay Commander with N4 and reports optimized vessel and crane workplans; exact crane-split depth and entitlement should be confirmed for the selected package. |
| Quay crane work queuesVessel & Berth Planning | Partially Supported96% confidenceThe TLC module executes optimized work orders across vessel, rail and gate operations, but quay-crane work-queue depth is not described as a standalone universal base capability. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Restow & vessel rehandle planningVessel & Berth Planning | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Stowage & bay planningVessel & Berth Planning | Partially Supported96% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents automated vessel planning using historical analysis and configurable patterns; exact bay-position and stowage-rule depth is not separately established in the reviewed public material. | Partially Supported99% confidenceN4 Vessel Autostow generates vessel stowage plans, but Autostow is an advanced optimization module and is not assumed in every N4 license. |
| Twin / tandem lift planningVessel & Berth Planning | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Vessel & berth planning / executionVessel & Berth Planning | Supported99% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents automated vessel, berth and yard planning using historical analysis, configurable patterns and real-time plan updates. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents vessel planning support including N4 Vessel Autostow and terminal planning across berth, yard and quay workflows. |
| Vessel call lifecycle managementVessel & Berth Planning | Partially Supported97% confidenceCyberLogitec's 2026 Incheon project states that OPUS Terminal manages berth and vessel operations in a unified platform, establishing vessel-operation scope without proving the full vessel-call lifecycle, berth-window workflow or port-call collaboration depth. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Automated decking / grounding decisionsYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceExpert Decking automatically distributes containers according to terminal-specific business rules, but Expert Decking is an optional N4 optimization module. |
| Block / stack allocation planningYard Strategy & Inventory | Partially Supported95% confidenceCyberLogitec documents automated yard planning and yard-location simulation, but explicit block, row, bay and stack allocation controls are not fully enumerated publicly. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Configurable yard strategy rulesYard Strategy & Inventory | Partially Supported97% confidenceAutomated yard planning uses historical analysis and configurable customer patterns; the reviewed public material does not enumerate the full yard-strategy rule model. | Partially Supported99% confidenceExpert Decking uses terminal business rules and Yard Intelligence adds strategy-oriented optimization; these capabilities are advanced/optional modules rather than assumed base-N4 entitlement. |
| Empty container inventory managementYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Housekeeping & remarshalling planningYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Import / export / prestack segregationYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported97% confidenceExpert Decking explicitly automates decking decisions for import, export, reefer and empty containers; a distinct universal prestack workflow is not inferred. |
| Rehandle minimizationYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Partially Supported99% confidenceExpert Decking and Yard Intelligence explicitly target rehandle reduction, but the optimization capability depends on optional advanced modules. |
| Yard density & capacity visibilityYard Strategy & Inventory | Partially Supported95% confidenceOperation Simulation estimates workload by time, block and equipment and evaluates yard locations, but explicit capacity-threshold and congestion-management controls are not fully described. | Partially Supported97% confidenceYard Intelligence forecasts emerging congestion and yard imbalance and supports capacity-oriented decisions, but it is a separate advanced optimization suite for N4 users. |
| Yard holds & exception managementYard Strategy & Inventory | Not Yet Verified0% confidence | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Yard inventory reconciliationYard Strategy & Inventory | Partially Supported96% confidenceCyberLogitec documents container intelligent management using container characteristics and history, while a Super Terminais implementation targets improved container-inventory accuracy; explicit planned-versus-physical reconciliation workflows are not separately established. | Not Yet Verified0% confidence |
| Yard planning & container inventoryYard Strategy & Inventory | Supported99% confidenceOPUS Terminal documents yard optimization, container intelligent management and automated yard planning. | Supported99% confidenceKaleris documents N4 yard planning, Expert Decking, yard utilization and real-time container/equipment visibility. |
| Deployment model | CyberLogitec OPUS Terminal | Navis N4 TOS |
|---|---|---|
| On-premise | Not recorded | Supported99% confidence |
Comparison facts, TechSelectAI analysis, community-derived insights and estimates are kept as separate evidence types. Missing evidence is not treated as proof of non-support.
Adjust the context below. Context Fit is calculated from the same published TechSelectAI evaluation signals and scoring methodology; it does not replace verified product facts or the saved project Decision Matrix.
What could change this recommendation? Confirmed requirements, must-have failures, exact integrations, regional availability, pricing, security requirements, and implementation capacity can materially change fit. For a saved, reproducible decision with custom weights, use a Selection Project.
A feature comparison is not the same as a recommendation. TechSelectAI can evaluate both products against your must-have capabilities, integrations, deployment constraints, security requirements, region and budget.
Evaluate for my company