Employers across Europe are required to assess the risks in their workplaces, including the risk of fire, but most rules say little about how such an assessment should be carried out. The most detailed published answer comes from the UK, where the British Standards Institution’s PAS 79-1:2020 sets out a methodology in nine steps, from gathering information about the premises and identifying fire hazards to formulating an action plan and defining when the assessment will be reviewed. Because it is one of the few step-by-step methodologies of its kind, most fire risk assessment software is built around it, and its nine steps describe what a thorough fire risk assessment covers in any country.
This is why we structure our comparison around PAS 79 rather than around general feature lists. What matters is not whether a tool comes with a particular template, since most of them let teams build or adapt their own, but whether it can actually hold the PAS 79 structure, because a tool that can’t forces assessors into workarounds and leaves organizations with reports that look different from site to site. We therefore looked at how well each tool can carry three stages of the methodology:
- Recording the assessment: holding PAS 79’s structure, with separate sections for the premises, the people at risk, fire hazards, protection measures and fire safety management, parts that repeat for each floor or area, and required questions that can’t be skipped.
- Rating the risk: combining how likely a fire is with how severe its consequences would be into an overall risk level, ideally calculated by the tool rather than entered by hand.
- Acting on the result: giving every recommendation in the action plan a priority, a timescale and an owner, following it up until it is closed, and making sure the assessment is reviewed on time.
For each tool, we rate every stage as strong, good or limited and explain the reasoning behind each rating. We give the third stage the most weight in our ranking, because it is the only one that actually reduces risk: a well-recorded and correctly rated assessment still leaves a building exactly as unsafe as before until its action plan is carried out, and this is where many organizations struggle once recommendations are spread across dozens of sites. If you weigh the stages differently, for example because you are an assessor whose job ends with the report, the individual ratings show you which tool fits you best.
No software, however, makes an assessment adequate on its own. The assessment still has to be carried out by a competent person, and the tools in this list support that person’s work rather than replace their judgment.
Best fire risk assessment software ranked
Before we look at each tool in detail, the table below shows how the eight platforms compare on starting price and on the kind of team each one serves best, so that you can narrow down your shortlist early.
| Rank | Software | Starting price (monthly) | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lumiform | User bundles or per-location pricing; cost per user falls as the rollout grows | Fire risk assessments across many sites, with every action plan item tracked to completion |
| 2 | RiskBase | On request | Fire risk assessors and consultancies producing fire risk assessment reports and related fire surveys |
| 3 | Mobiess | On request | Facilities management teams capturing fire risk assessments on mobile |
| 4 | Vision Pro | Circa €600 per account, flat rate (£500) | Property portfolios managing fire risk alongside asbestos, legionella and other compliance areas |
| 5 | Mitti (formerly SafetyCulture) | Free plan for up to 10 users; Premium circa €21 per user, billed annually ($24) | Teams that want fire risk assessments inside a broad operations platform |
| 6 | GoAudits | Circa €9 per user, billed annually ($10) | Teams that want a simple, low-cost audit app for fire risk assessments alongside their other checklists |
| 7 | ClickHSE (ClickFRA) | On request | Smaller businesses completing their own fire risk assessment online |
| 8 | EcoOnline (formerly Alcumus software) | On request | Organizations that already run their health and safety management in EcoOnline |
1. Lumiform
Best for: Organizations that carry out fire risk assessments across many sites and need every item in the action plan tracked until it is done
Lumiform is a Berlin-based inspection software that companies with frontline teams use to run inspections, audits and checklists at scale across distributed operations. For fire risk assessments, this means that the same structured assessment can run at every site, whether a company has ten locations or several hundred, so head office sees the findings from all of them in one place instead of collecting individual reports that each look different.
What sets Lumiform apart from the other tools in this list is what happens after the assessment. While many of them produce a solid PAS 79 report, a report on its own doesn’t reduce any risk until its recommendations are carried out, which is exactly the part Lumiform is built for, since every recommendation becomes a tracked task that stays visible until someone has fixed it.
How Lumiform supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
Because Lumiform is built around the complete inspection cycle rather than the report alone, it can carry the PAS 79 structure from the first question to the next review, although its clearest advantage lies in the third stage.
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Strong | Teams build their assessment around PAS 79 in the form builder or upload their existing template, which AI file upload turns into a digital form. Pages, sections, repeating sections, required questions and conditional logic can hold the full PAS 79 structure, so every site works through the same assessment, including the parts that repeat for each floor or area. |
| Rating the risk | Good | Scoring and result ranges let teams define what each outcome means, so that every assessment ends in a clear result that can be compared from site to site. |
| Acting on the result | Strong | Every item in the action plan becomes a corrective action with a priority, an owner and a deadline that goes automatically to the person responsible for that site, and because recommended recurring checks and the next review are scheduled in the same system, no site falls out of the cycle. |
Taken together, these ratings make Lumiform the only tool in this comparison that is strong both in holding the PAS 79 structure and in the stage we weight most, which is why it ranks first even though the specialists below it calculate the risk rating with less setup.
Choose Lumiform if your organization runs fire risk assessments across many locations and your main concern is that the action plans actually get carried out, bearing in mind that Lumiform supports the competent person who carries out the assessment rather than replacing them.
2. RiskBase
Best for: Fire risk assessors and consultancies that produce fire risk assessment reports alongside fire door, compartmentation and external wall surveys
RiskBase is a UK platform built specifically for fire and building safety assessments, and its partners use it for fire risk assessments, fire door inspections, compartmentation surveys and external wall surveys, together producing more than 500,000 site visits a year. This makes it the most established specialist in this comparison, and it ranks second because its focus lies on the assessor’s work, whereas Lumiform puts more weight on what organizations do with the results across all their sites.
How RiskBase supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Strong | Since RiskBase is built specifically for fire risk assessments, the structure is part of the product rather than something teams configure, and because door inspections and compartmentation surveys sit in the same app, related findings for one building stay together. |
| Rating the risk | Strong | Because the risk rating is built into its fire risk assessments, assessors arrive at the overall risk level as part of the assessment itself rather than working it out separately. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Tasks can be assigned to the people responsible for a building once the assessment is submitted, although organizations that also run other recurring site checks would need a second system for those. |
No other tool in this list holds the assessment and its risk rating with less setup, which is why assessors will find RiskBase hard to beat, whereas organizations that need the resulting actions carried out across many sites alongside their other recurring checks will get further with a tool that is strongest in the third stage.
Choose RiskBase if you are a fire risk assessor or consultancy, or an organization with an in-house fire safety team, and you want a dedicated tool for fire risk assessments and related building safety surveys.
3. Mobiess
Best for: Facilities management teams that want to capture fire risk assessments on mobile using the PAS 79 methodology
Mobiess is a UK mobile compliance platform for facilities management, and its fire safety app is built on the PAS 79 methodology for both residential and commercial premises, so the structure of the assessment is part of the product rather than something teams have to set up themselves. Mobiess ranks third because, unlike RiskBase, it centres on capturing the assessment rather than covering the wider range of fire and building safety surveys that assessors often need for the same building.
How Mobiess supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Strong | Since the app follows PAS 79 for both residential and commercial premises, assessors work through the standard’s structure from their first assessment onwards. |
| Rating the risk | Strong | Because the app follows the PAS 79 methodology, the risk rating is part of every assessment rather than something teams have to model themselves. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Findings can be followed up within the facilities management platform, although the product is built mainly around collecting data on site rather than tracking actions across many locations. |
Because the PAS 79 structure is already built in, Mobiess offers one of the fastest starts in this comparison, although teams that need related fire surveys in the same system or rely heavily on following up actions across many sites will find more depth in the tools ranked above it.
Choose Mobiess if you work in facilities management and want to carry out fire risk assessments on mobile following the PAS 79 methodology from day one.
4. Vision Pro
Best for: Property and estates teams that manage fire risk alongside asbestos, legionella and other building compliance areas
Vision Pro is a UK cloud platform that property owners and estates teams use to manage their statutory building compliance in one place, with modules for fire risk, asbestos, legionella, assets, audits and building condition. Its fire risk module follows PAS 79 and can also be adapted to an organization’s own requirements, and it manages fire safety and emergency equipment as assets. Vision Pro ranks fourth because fire risk is one module within this wider property compliance system, which makes it a strong fit for portfolio managers but less focused on fire risk assessments than the tools ranked above it.
How Vision Pro supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Strong | Since the fire risk module follows PAS 79 and can be adapted, assessments hold the standard’s structure while fitting an organization’s own requirements, and mobile apps let assessors collect data on site. |
| Rating the risk | Strong | Because the fire risk module follows PAS 79, assessments lead to a risk rating as part of the process, which then sits alongside the ratings for other compliance areas in the same building. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Alerts and task management help teams follow up on findings, although these features serve the whole compliance portfolio, so fire risk actions share the same workflow as asbestos or legionella tasks. |
For organizations that want fire risk in the same system as their other building compliance areas, Vision Pro is the most complete option in this comparison, but teams looking specifically for fire risk assessments will find more focused tools higher up in the ranking.
Choose Vision Pro if you manage a property portfolio and want fire risk assessments, asbestos, legionella and building condition in one platform.
5. Mitti (formerly SafetyCulture)
Best for: Teams that want to run fire risk assessments inside a broad operations platform they already use for other checks
Mitti (formerly SafetyCulture) is an Australian operations platform that began as the iAuditor inspection app and now also covers training, sensors, asset management and an equipment marketplace. For fire risk assessments, teams can build the PAS 79 structure in its form builder or start from checklists in its public library, and its analytics calculate risk scores that help managers decide which findings to tackle first. Mitti ranks fifth because fire risk assessment is one use among many in a platform built for far broader purposes, which adds menus and modules for frontline teams who only need to complete their checks, and because its follow-up depends more on the person completing the assessment, since actions triggered by logic don’t come with preset fields such as an assignee or a deadline.
How Mitti supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Good | Since its form builder supports sections, logic and required questions, teams can hold the PAS 79 structure, although they set it up themselves or adapt a community template that should be reviewed against the standard first. |
| Rating the risk | Good | Risk scores and analytics show which findings carry the highest risk, so managers can prioritize their response across sites. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Findings can be turned into actions and assigned to team members, although actions triggered by logic don’t come with preset fields such as assignee or deadline, so more depends on the person completing the assessment. |
Teams already working in Mitti will find fire risk assessments easy to add to their existing setup, whereas organizations choosing a tool specifically for PAS 79 assessments will find the risk rating more firmly built into the specialists and stronger follow-up in Lumiform.
Choose it if you already use Mitti for other inspections or training and want your fire risk assessments in the same platform.
6. GoAudits
Best for: Smaller teams that want a simple, low-cost audit app for fire risk assessments alongside their other checklists
GoAudits is a general audit and inspection app that teams use for checklists of all kinds, from brand standards to health and safety, and its checklist builder lets teams set up fire risk assessments that can be completed both offline and online. Its main attractions are a low entry price and a quick start, which make it easy to move from paper without a large project.
GoAudits ranks sixth because the features that matter most for fire risk assessments across many sites are not part of its entry plan. The Starter plan covers up to 25 locations and doesn’t include scheduling, so organizations that need periodic reviews to happen on time at every site have to move to the Enterprise plan, which costs three times as much and removes most of the price advantage that makes GoAudits attractive in the first place.
How GoAudits supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Good | Since teams can build sections around PAS 79 and complete them offline, the checklist builder can hold the standard’s structure once it has been set up, although the entry plan’s limit of 10 templates leaves little room for separate assessments by premises type. |
| Rating the risk | Good | Weighted section scoring turns findings into a clear result, so teams can see at a glance which parts of a building need the most attention. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Corrective actions can be assigned and tracked through an action plan, but because scheduling and notifications only come with the Enterprise plan, keeping periodic reviews on track requires the higher tier. |
For small teams that want fire risk assessments digitized quickly and at low cost, GoAudits is a practical entry point, whereas organizations with many sites will run into the limits of the entry plan and get more depth from the tools ranked above it.
Choose GoAudits if you run a small number of sites and want an affordable, easy-to-learn app for fire risk assessments and your other audits.
7. ClickHSE (ClickFRA)
Best for: Smaller businesses that want to complete their own fire risk assessment online with step-by-step guidance
ClickHSE is a UK health and safety management platform, and its fire risk assessment tool, ClickFRA, guides users through the assessment one step at a time. This makes it one of the more accessible options in this comparison for people who are not fire safety specialists, since the tool explains what to look at rather than assuming the user already knows. We rank ClickHSE here because this guided approach is designed for smaller businesses assessing their own premises, which suits a single site well but offers less depth for complex buildings or for organizations that need to follow up actions across many locations.
How ClickHSE supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Good | Since the guided questionnaire is built specifically for fire risk assessments, users work through a fixed structure, although it is simplified for non-specialists and leaves less room for the detail that complex premises require. |
| Rating the risk | Good | Because the assessment follows a set sequence, it leads users towards an overall result without having to model a risk rating themselves, although the guidance is aimed at straightforward premises rather than formal assessments by professionals. |
| Acting on the result | Limited | ClickFRA’s own description centres on guiding users through the assessment, so organizations that need recommendations assigned, followed up and reviewed across many sites will find little support for that stage. |
For a small business that wants to complete its own fire risk assessment without hiring a consultant for every update, ClickFRA offers a clear and guided route, whereas larger organizations will outgrow it as soon as the action plan has to be managed across several sites.
Choose ClickHSE if you run a small business with one or a few premises and want to carry out your own fire risk assessment with step-by-step guidance.
8. EcoOnline (formerly Alcumus software)
Best for: Organizations that already run their health and safety management in EcoOnline and want fire risk assessments in the same system
EcoOnline is a European environment, health and safety (EHS) platform that grew significantly in January 2023, when it acquired the software division of the UK company Alcumus. Many UK buyers therefore still know parts of its product by the Alcumus name. Fire risk assessments in EcoOnline are one type of assessment within a broader EHS system that also covers areas such as incident reporting and chemical management. EcoOnline ranks eighth because choosing it for fire risk assessments alone means introducing a complete EHS system, which only pays off for organizations that need, or already use, that wider scope.
How EcoOnline supports the three stages of a PAS 79 assessment
| Stage | Our rating | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the assessment | Good | Since risk assessments are a core part of the platform, teams can record fire risk assessments in a structured way, although the PAS 79 structure sits within a general risk assessment framework rather than being the starting point. |
| Rating the risk | Good | Because risk rating is central to how EHS systems work, assessments lead to a risk level, which can then be viewed alongside other workplace risks across the organization. |
| Acting on the result | Good | Actions from the assessment can be tracked within the same system, although they share the workflow of the entire EHS suite, so fire risk follow-ups compete for attention with every other type of safety action. |
For organizations already working in EcoOnline, adding fire risk assessments keeps all safety data in one place, but teams choosing a tool specifically for fire risk assessments will find faster and more focused options higher up in this list. Our comparison of Lumiform and EcoOnline covers the differences between the two in more detail.
Choose EcoOnline if your organization already manages health and safety in EcoOnline, or plans to, and wants its fire risk assessments in the same system.
Which fire risk assessment software fits your use case?
The right tool depends less on features than on where your work with a fire risk assessment ends. An assessor’s job is usually done once the report is delivered, whereas an organization responsible for many buildings is only getting started at that point, because the recommendations still have to be carried out.
The table below therefore matches the most common use cases to the tools that suit them best.
| Use case | Shortlist | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You need fire risk assessments to lead to completed actions, whether you carry them out in-house or commission an assessor | Lumiform | Lumiform is the only tool in this comparison that is strong both in holding the PAS 79 structure and in following up every recommendation until it is closed, so the assessment changes something in the building rather than ending as a report. |
| You want fire risk assessments and the recurring fire safety checks they recommend in one system | Lumiform | Since recommendations such as weekly fire door walks or monthly extinguisher checks can become scheduled inspections in the same system, nothing has to be transferred to a second tool or to paper. |
| You carry out fire risk assessments as an assessor or consultancy | RiskBase, Mobiess | The PAS 79 structure and the risk rating are built in, so assessors can focus on the assessment rather than setting up the tool. |
| You manage fire risk alongside asbestos, legionella or wider safety management | Vision Pro, EcoOnline | Fire risk sits in the same system as your other compliance areas, so you don’t have to maintain separate tools for each. |
| You already use a general inspection platform | Mitti, GoAudits | Adding fire risk assessments to a tool your teams already know avoids a second rollout. |
| You are a small business assessing your own premises | ClickHSE | The guided questionnaire walks non-specialists through the assessment step by step. |
Five tests to run in any free trial
Since most vendors in this list offer a trial or demo, the quickest way to compare them is to set up one real assessment and check whether the tool can carry the PAS 79 structure from start to finish:
- Repeat an area. Add a second floor or wing to the assessment, because a tool that can’t repeat sections forces you to build a new form for every building layout.
- Calculate the risk. Enter a likelihood and a consequence and see whether the tool works out the overall risk level itself, or whether the assessor has to type it in by hand.
- Create an action. Turn one recommendation into a task with a priority, a timescale and an owner, then check whether that owner is actually notified.
- Let it go overdue. Leave the action open past its deadline and see whether anyone is reminded or whether it simply stays on a list.
- Schedule the review. Set the date for the next review and check whether the tool will prompt someone when it arrives, because this is the step that most often slips once an assessment has been filed away.
How we evaluated these tools
This comparison was written by the Lumiform team, and since Lumiform appears in it, we want to make our method as transparent as possible, so that you can check each rating yourself rather than take our ranking on trust.
Which tools we included. We selected eight tools that buyers in the UK and Europe most often consider for fire risk assessments. They range from specialists built only for fire risk, such as RiskBase and Mobiess, through property and safety platforms with a fire risk module, such as Vision Pro and EcoOnline, to general inspection tools that teams also use for fire risk assessments, such as Mitti and GoAudits. This mix reflects the real choice most buyers face, which is less between similar products than between different approaches.
How we rated each stage. We rated every tool on the three stages of the PAS 79 methodology, using the same definitions throughout:
| Rating | Recording the assessment | Rating the risk | Acting on the result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong | The tool holds the full PAS 79 structure, including repeating parts and required questions | The risk level is part of every assessment without extra setup | Actions reach the right person automatically, are followed up until closed, and reviews are scheduled |
| Good | The structure can be built or adapted, but needs setting up | The risk level can be modeled through scoring or logic | Actions can be assigned and tracked, but follow-up or scheduling has gaps |
| Limited | Only part of the structure can be recorded | No clear way to arrive at a risk level | Little or no support for following up actions |
Because only the third stage actually reduces risk, it carries the most weight in our ranking, so a tool that is strong in following up the action plan ranks above one that is strong in recording and rating alone.
What our ratings are based on. We based every rating on what each vendor publicly documents on its website, product pages and pricing pages, as checked in November 2026. We did not test every tool hands-on, so a rating describes what a tool is documented to do rather than how it performs in your organization. Where a vendor doesn’t publish its prices, we say so instead of estimating them. Prices were converted at November 2026 exchange rates (£1 ≈ €1.20, $1 ≈ €0.89), and since products change, we recommend confirming the details that matter most to you in a demo.