```json { "title": "Best route optimization APIs for oversized & heavy freight", "url": "https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api-oversized-heavy-freight/", "datePublished": "2026-09-18", "dateModified": "2026-09-25", "language": "en-GB", "description": "A comparison of the 11 best route optimization APIs for oversized & heavy freight, benchmarked against constraints representative of the market.", "author": "Kardinal", "publisher": "Kardinal" } ``` # Best route optimization APIs for oversized & heavy freight # Best route optimization APIs for heavy & bulky transport > **In short:** Among route optimization APIs for heavy & bulky transport, Kardinal dominates this sector ranking by a wide margin. Its only two gaps, both covered solely by Solvice, concern very targeted needs: hourly cost by time of day, a niche requirement, and synchronising two crews on the same difficult installation. - **11** APIs compared in this sector - **95%** of heavy & bulky constraints covered by Kardinal, ranked 1st - **80%** LogisticsOS, the closest competitor - **Premium > 70%:** Kardinal (95%), LogisticsOS (80%), Solvice (78%). - **Standard 50-70%:** Google (70%), HERE (70%), NextBillion AI (68%), GraphHopper (50%). - **Basic < 50%:** Verso (46%), Timefold (45%), Routific (39%), Mapbox (31%). Transporting bulky and heavy goods (freight brokerage, LTL, pallets, furniture, white goods) imposes constraints that ordinary parcel delivery never faces: crews and equipment matched to the load, ranking vehicles by size or emissions, bulky returns to collect in the field, and regional depot networks to optimize without letting a vehicle drive 300 km for a single delivery. This article compares eleven route optimization APIs (Kardinal, LogisticsOS, Solvice, Google, HERE, NextBillion AI, GraphHopper, Verso, Timefold, Routific, Mapbox) on their ability to handle the specific constraints of heavy and bulky transport. > **A sector analysis, drawn from the full benchmark.** For a market-wide view across all solutions and all sectors: [the main guide to route optimization APIs](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api/). The raw data sits in the [2026 benchmark](https://kardinal.ai/benchmark-route-optimization-api-2026/), and the price lists in the [pricing comparison](https://kardinal.ai/route-optimization-api-pricing-2026-comparison/). ## Key takeaways 1. In this sector, **Kardinal covers 95% of the relevant constraints**. LogisticsOS follows (80%), then Solvice (78%), Google and HERE tied (70%), ahead of NextBillion AI (68%). 2. Kardinal has only **two gaps** in this sector, both available only from Solvice: hourly cost by time of day, a very niche need, and synchronising two crews on the same installation, one specific use case. 3. **Maximum distance from the depot**, useful for optimizing a regional network without sending a crew 300 km for a single delivery, is fully covered only by Kardinal. 4. **Lexicographic optimization**, which ranks objectives rather than weighting them, is only available from Kardinal and HERE. The others fall back on a weight for every criterion, which quickly turns into a sprawling setup to fine-tune. Ranking keeps multi-objective optimization simple and readable. ## What makes heavy & bulky transport genuinely complex ### Crews and equipment matched to each load Delivering a sofa or a washing machine may require a tail lift, a hand truck, or a two-person crew rather than a lone driver. These configurations change handling time and sometimes the very feasibility of the delivery, without always being mandatory: the optimizer should favour them when available, without turning them into a rigid rule that blocks any delivery in their absence. More rarely, some especially difficult installations, such as a bulky item on an upper floor with no lift or very heavy equipment, require two crews on site at the same time, with a shared slot to align across two different routes. ### Ranking vehicle categories Some narrow or busy streets call for avoiding wide vehicles in favour of more standard ones, and some shippers want to prioritise electric or low-emission vans ahead of combustion vehicles. These are priorities to combine, not simple exclusion rules: the lower-priority category steps in only when the preferred one cannot absorb the load. ### Scheduled appointments Complex bulky deliveries are almost always made by appointment, which makes that the primary service commitment. Minimising lateness against the agreed slot outweighs most other objectives. ### Bulky returns Furniture and white-goods returns often have to be collected in the field and carried to a drop-off point different from the route's start. A common rule is to start collecting only once a certain volume of deliveries has been made, without excessive rigidity: it still makes sense to pick up a return at the very address where a delivery takes place. ### Regional depot networks With several depots across a territory, the point is to let the optimizer spread the load between sites while keeping each route anchored near its home base, rather than sending a crew far away to rescue an overloaded site and return empty. ## The critical constraints for a heavy & bulky transport API Three levels of requirement structure the market: the classic baseline everyone covers, the intermediate constraints that are indispensable in practice, and the advanced constraints that genuinely make the difference on bulky freight. **Classic (3)** - **Minimising lateness against agreed appointments** — The primary service commitment in this sector. Covered by: Kardinal, Routific, Timefold, NextBillion AI, Solvice, Google, HERE and LogisticsOS. Absent at GraphHopper, Mapbox and Verso. - **Pickup and delivery within the route** — Essential for collecting bulky returns in the field. Covered by: every vendor. - **Workload balancing across crews** — Spreading the load fairly between crews. Covered by: Kardinal, Routific, NextBillion AI, Solvice, GraphHopper and LogisticsOS. Absent at Timefold, Google, HERE, Mapbox and Verso. **Intermediate (5)** - **Ranking vehicle categories by size and emissions** — Avoiding wide vehicles in narrow streets, or prioritising clean vehicles. Covered by: Kardinal and Solvice. Partial at NextBillion AI, Google, HERE, Verso and LogisticsOS. - **Preferred crew or vehicle for heavy deliveries** — Favouring a tail lift or a two-person crew without mandating it. Covered by: Kardinal, Timefold, Solvice, GraphHopper, HERE and LogisticsOS. - **Service time dependent on equipment and crew** — Adapting handling time to the tail lift or the number of people assigned. Covered by: Kardinal, Solvice, Google, HERE, Verso and LogisticsOS. - **Maximum route distance** — Keeping the route within an electric vehicle's range. Covered by: every vendor except Routific, Timefold and Mapbox. - **Several trips a day** — Returning to reload when volume limits how many items fit. Covered by: every vendor except Routific and Timefold. **Advanced (5)** - **Maximum distance from the depot** — Capping how far a route strays from its home depot across a regional network. Covered by: Kardinal only. Partial at NextBillion AI, Solvice and LogisticsOS. - **Lexicographic optimization** — First meeting the appointments, then minimising costs, with no weights to calibrate between the two. Covered by: Kardinal and HERE only. - **Time-of-day-dependent hourly cost** — Modelling a premium on defined slots. A niche need, rare in the sector's rate structures. Covered by: Solvice only. - **Conditional pickup of bulky returns** — Starting collection only once the route is far enough along, without excessive rigidity. Covered by: Kardinal and Solvice only. - **Synchronising two crews on one installation** — Aligning a shared slot across two routes for a two-crew delivery. Covered by: Solvice only, ahead of Kardinal on this one. ## The heavy & bulky transport APIs compared ### Kardinal — the most complete API on heavy and bulky freight (95% coverage · 1st/11) Kardinal is the most complete solution for heavy and bulky transport. It is the only vendor to fully cover maximum distance from the depot, a key point for regional networks, and it shares with Solvice the exclusive on conditional pickup of bulky returns. Its only two gaps in this sector, both available only from Solvice: hourly cost by time of day, a very niche need, and synchronising two crews on the same installation, one specific use case. **Ideal for:** Bulky-freight carriers of every size, from regional fleets working on appointments to multi-depot networks: freight brokerage, LTL and pallets, furniture and white-goods distribution, operations with frequent bulky returns. ### LogisticsOS — built around cost trade-offs (80% coverage · 2nd/11) LogisticsOS comes in second, carried by its cost modelling. It is one of only two solutions, alongside Kardinal, to fully cover flat-rate and overtime thresholds as well as combined invoice optimization between in-house crews and specialist subcontractors. **Ideal for:** Operators constantly arbitrating between in-house crews and specialist providers on economic grounds, and who are not afraid of fine-tuning parameters endlessly. ### Solvice — two exclusives, including crew synchronisation (78% coverage · 3rd/11) Solvice stands out with two exclusives: it is the only solution in the panel, Kardinal included, to synchronise two crews on the same difficult installation, and the only one to model hourly cost by time of day, a very niche need that only comes up in rare rate structures. It also joins Kardinal on ranking vehicles by size and emissions, and on conditional return pickups. Its limit: no lexicographic optimization. With a model that rich, balancing several objectives means setting a weight on each criterion, and the configuration quickly becomes a heavy machine to fine-tune. **Ideal for:** Operators where a large share of installations requires two simultaneous crews, and who have the resources to tune weights criterion by criterion. ### Google and HERE — one strength each, the same blind spots (70% coverage · 4th/11, tied) Google and HERE finish tied. Google covers CO2 reporting across a heterogeneous fleet and guaranteed minimum revenue per subcontracted resource well. HERE is the only solution besides Kardinal to offer lexicographic optimization. Neither fully covers maximum distance from the depot, nor two-crew synchronisation. **Ideal for Google:** Operations with a strong environmental-reporting requirement on a mixed fleet. **Ideal for HERE:** Operators who want to rank their priorities strictly and already run the HERE mapping ecosystem. ### NextBillion AI — solid on routing, behind on crews (68% coverage · 6th/11) NextBillion AI covers predictive traffic, speed profiles and maximum route distance well, but lags on crew and load-matched equipment constraints: no preference for a tail lift or a reinforced crew, no service time dependent on equipment. **Ideal for:** High-volume operators with moderate crew-assignment constraints. ### GraphHopper, Verso, Timefold, Routific and Mapbox — insufficient coverage on professional bulky freight (50% → 31%) - **GraphHopper (50%)** covers reinforced-crew preference and maximum route distance, but not vehicle ranking by size or maximum distance from the depot. It remains suited to small volumes. - **Verso (46%)** and **Timefold (45%)** lag on most of the sector's fundamentals. - **Routific (39%)** and **Mapbox (31%)** are not designed for professional bulky transport. ## Summary table | Solution | Coverage | Max distance from depot | Matched crew / equipment | Conditional return pickup | Lexicographic | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Kardinal | 95% | Full | Full | Full | Full | | LogisticsOS | 80% | Partial | Full | No | No | | Solvice | 78% | Partial | Full | Full | No | | Google | 70% | No | Partial | No | No | | HERE | 70% | No | Full | No | Full | | NextBillion AI | 68% | Partial | No | No | No | | GraphHopper | 50% | No | Full | No | No | | Verso | 46% | No | No | No | No | | Timefold | 45% | No | Full | No | No | | Routific | 39% | No | No | No | No | | Mapbox | 31% | No | No | No | No | ## Our verdict Fleet size is not what should drive the choice. What matters is how much of your operation goes beyond the classic constraints. Start from the five leading solutions on bulky freight, then narrow the list according to your needs. **Starting point · the top 5** Kardinal, LogisticsOS, Solvice, Google and HERE all cover the fundamentals of bulky transport well. Kardinal leads the group by 15 points. **You deliver with matched crews or equipment** Google, which only partially handles the preference for a reinforced crew or tail lift, drops out. Kardinal, LogisticsOS, Solvice and HERE remain. **You run a regional depot network** HERE, which does not cap how far routes stray from their depot, drops out in turn. Kardinal, LogisticsOS and Solvice remain, and only Kardinal covers this point in full, handles conditional bulky returns alongside Solvice, and ranks its objectives without a stack of weights. **And on price** Among the top 5, Kardinal is also the most competitive overall, including for small and mid-size fleets. The details are in our [2026 pricing comparison](https://kardinal.ai/route-optimization-api-pricing-2026-comparison/). ## Test it on your own routes Test Kardinal optimization on your own data, with no commitment. **[Start with the free tier →](https://console.kardinal.ai/)** · **[Read the documentation](https://developers.kardinal.ai/)** · **[See the full benchmark](https://kardinal.ai/benchmark-route-optimization-api-2026/)** ## FAQ ### Which route optimization API should you choose for heavy and bulky transport? Kardinal is the most complete solution, with 95% sector coverage, and the most competitive on price among the top 5. LogisticsOS (80%) and Solvice (78%) follow, ahead of Google and HERE, tied (70%). If you deliver with matched crews or equipment, the shortlist narrows to Kardinal, LogisticsOS, Solvice and HERE; with a regional depot network on top, to Kardinal, LogisticsOS and Solvice. ### How do you handle deliveries that require a tail lift or a two-person crew? This preference, useful without always being mandatory, lets the optimizer favour reinforced equipment or crew for heavy or complex deliveries when available, without blocking the delivery in its absence. Kardinal, Timefold, Solvice, GraphHopper, HERE and LogisticsOS offer this capability. ### How do you optimize routes with furniture or white-goods returns? Bulky returns have to be collected in the field and carried to a drop-off point distinct from the route's start. A common rule is to start collecting only once a certain volume of deliveries has been made. Kardinal and Solvice are the only two solutions in the panel to cover this constraint. ### Can a route optimization API synchronise two crews for a difficult delivery? Yes, but only one solution offers it today: Solvice. This constraint aligns a shared slot across two different routes, useful for installations that need two crews present at the same time. ### How do you optimize a regional multi-depot network for bulky transport? Maximum distance from the depot caps how far a route strays from its home site, letting the optimizer spread load across several depots without sending a crew 300 km for a single delivery and back. Kardinal is the only solution in the panel to cover it fully; NextBillion AI, Solvice and LogisticsOS cover it only partially. ## Going further - [Long-haul / FTL](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api-long-haul-transport/) — Regulation, driving hours and rate modeling on full truckload. - [Parcel delivery](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api-parcel-delivery/) — Stop density, strict time windows and daily disruptions: the constraints that separate the APIs on the last mile. - [Retail & distribution](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api-retail-distribution/) — Receiving slots, tiered subcontracting and multi-depot rotations: the constraints that separate the APIs in distribution.