GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Construction InfrastructureTop 8 Best Professional Construction Estimating Software of 2026
Top 10 ranking of Professional Construction Estimating Software tools with criteria and tradeoffs for construction estimating teams.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
STACK Estimating
Versioned estimate objects with controlled access for change tracking across bid iterations.
Built for fits when mid-size contractors need controlled automation and API-based integrations for repeatable bids..
Bluebeam Revu
Editor pickMeasurement and markup data stay linked to sheets for traceable quantity takeoff.
Built for fits when estimating teams need governed document workflows and traceable quantities without custom code..
PlanSwift
Editor pickAssembly-driven estimating that links drawing takeoff quantities to cost code line items.
Built for fits when mid-size estimating teams need structured takeoff to cost automation without heavy custom integration..
Related reading
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Professional Building Design Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Insurance Restoration Estimating Software of 2026
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best General Contractor Estimating Software of 2026
- Construction InfrastructureTop 10 Best Construction Estimating Services of 2026
Comparison Table
This comparison table evaluates professional construction estimating software across integration depth, data model shape, and how much automation each tool provides through API and extensibility. It also compares admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning workflows, and audit log coverage to show how teams manage configuration and throughput. Readers can map tool fit to project standards by comparing schema expectations, integration paths, and the practical limits of each automation surface.
STACK Estimating
specialist cloudCloud estimating for construction that supports assemblies, line items, takeoff imports, and bid outputs with administrative control and integration to other job systems.
Versioned estimate objects with controlled access for change tracking across bid iterations.
STACK Estimating is built around a consistent estimating data model that links line items, assemblies, quantities, and pricing logic into outputs that stay traceable across iterations. Its automation surface supports repeatable estimate structures via configuration and template patterns, and it enables external orchestration through API endpoints for provisioning, reads, and updates. Integration depth is measured by how far the system can remain the system of record while connected tools consume the same structured objects. Governance relies on user permissions, estimate versioning, and change visibility so procurement and estimating teams can coordinate without overwriting each other’s work.
A key tradeoff is that automation depends on the stability of the schema and mapping between external cost systems and STACK objects. Teams get the best throughput when they standardize assemblies, markups, and normalization rules before wiring integrations, because later changes force remapping across stored estimates. A common usage situation is monthly estimating cycles where bid models must remain consistent while upstream takeoff and downstream ERP staging update on a schedule.
- +Schema-driven estimate data model keeps quantities, pricing, and outputs traceable
- +Automation-ready configuration reduces manual rework across revisions
- +API surface supports external orchestration for provisioning and estimate updates
- +RBAC-style governance supports controlled access to estimate objects
- –Integration mapping effort increases when cost taxonomy is inconsistent
- –Schema changes can require rework of historical automation logic
- –Template standardization is necessary to avoid duplicated estimating structures
Estimating teams
Standardize bid structures across projects
Fewer rework cycles per bid
Procurement analysts
Sync supplier pricing into estimates
Tighter pricing turnaround
Show 2 more scenarios
Software integrations engineers
Automate takeoff to proposal output
Higher automation throughput
External systems can provision, read, and update structured estimating records through the API.
Project controls managers
Audit estimate changes over time
Clear change history
RBAC governance and versioning support review and audit readiness for estimate edits.
Best for: Fits when mid-size contractors need controlled automation and API-based integrations for repeatable bids.
More related reading
Bluebeam Revu
takeoff + workflowPDF-based takeoff and estimating workflow with measurement markup, templates, and extensibility through integrations that support automation and governed project data.
Measurement and markup data stay linked to sheets for traceable quantity takeoff.
Bluebeam Revu fits estimating teams that need repeatable quantities from marked-up plans and consistent document workflows across projects. The data model connects drawings, markups, and measurement results so estimators can trace scope decisions to the source sheets. Integration depth is strongest where document revision, markup history, and quantity sets must stay synchronized through review cycles.
A key tradeoff is that deeper automation depends on how templates and forms are structured in advance. Teams get the best throughput when standards for layers, markups, and takeoff conventions are enforced before production starts. Usage also tends to favor office-based estimating with heavy document collaboration rather than field-first measurement.
- +Markup-to-quantities traceability connects decisions to source drawings
- +Template-driven takeoff and form capture support repeatable estimating runs
- +Extensibility enables workflow automation around documents and data capture
- +Governance is strengthened by RBAC-style access controls and change history
- –Automation requires careful template and schema planning up front
- –Structured takeoff conventions are mandatory to keep outputs consistent
General contractors estimators
Quantify scope from reviewed plan sets
Fewer quantity disputes
Subcontractor bid teams
Standardize takeoffs across multiple bids
Consistent bid outputs
Show 2 more scenarios
Project controls leaders
Track changes across revisions
Clear revision traceability
Markup history supports review of scope changes tied to document updates.
Estimating IT administrators
Apply access and workflow governance
Reduced access risk
RBAC-style controls and auditability support controlled provisioning of project workspaces.
Best for: Fits when estimating teams need governed document workflows and traceable quantities without custom code.
PlanSwift
desktop estimatingConstruction estimating software that converts drawings into measurable quantities using templates, assemblies, and exportable estimate data for bid packages.
Assembly-driven estimating that links drawing takeoff quantities to cost code line items.
PlanSwift’s core value comes from how drawings become measurable takeoff entities that feed cost builds with consistent quantities. The software organizes estimates around assemblies, allowing repeatable structure across projects. Its data model supports traceability from takeoff items to estimate line items, which helps reduce reconciliation work between field changes and estimate updates.
A tradeoff appears in governance and automation control for large organizations that require strict RBAC granularity and extensive API-first integrations. PlanSwift fits teams that can standardize estimate structures and rely on internal procedures for quality control. It is also a strong fit when throughput matters for remeasuring updated drawings without rebuilding the entire cost book.
- +Takeoff quantities map cleanly into assembly-based cost builds
- +Repeatable assemblies support consistent estimating across projects
- +Estimate structure remains traceable from drawing measures to line items
- +Configurable takeoff workflow supports higher remeasure throughput
- –API and automation surface are limited versus fully programmable estimating systems
- –Deep enterprise governance depends more on process than fine RBAC controls
- –Cross-system schema mapping can add admin overhead for custom toolchains
Preconstruction estimating teams
Re-measure plan sets efficiently across revisions
Faster revision turnaround
Estimating managers
Standardize cost books across estimators
Lower variance between bids
Show 2 more scenarios
Construction project controls
Reconcile estimate quantities to budgets
Improved reconciliation accuracy
Project controls trace estimate line items back to measured quantities from drawings.
Software administrators
Integrate estimate outputs into internal systems
Reduced manual rekeying
Admins use export workflows to move estimate data into downstream planning and reporting tools.
Best for: Fits when mid-size estimating teams need structured takeoff to cost automation without heavy custom integration.
FastDraft
digital takeoff2D digital takeoff and estimating workflow that converts measurement into estimate line items with exportable budgets for construction bids.
Configurable automation workflows that generate estimates from a structured takeoff data model.
FastDraft targets professional construction estimating with an emphasis on structured takeoff inputs and repeatable estimate outputs. It supports automation for estimate generation through configurable workflows that standardize line items, assemblies, and pricing inputs across projects.
Integration depth is defined by its API and extensibility points that map estimating data to external systems. Admin governance focuses on RBAC-style access controls and traceability through audit logs tied to changes in estimate artifacts.
- +Schema-based data model for line items and assemblies
- +Automation workflows reduce manual estimate regeneration errors
- +API surface supports integration into estimating and ERP systems
- +RBAC and audit log records improve change traceability
- –Complex schema configuration can slow early deployments
- –Automation rules require clear conventions for pricing inputs
- –Throughput under very large takeoff imports needs validation
- –Integration mapping can take time for custom item taxonomies
Best for: Fits when estimating teams need governed automation and API-driven integration across multiple systems.
FastTrace Estimating
takeoff and estimatesDigital takeoff and cost estimating software that structures assemblies into estimate scopes and supports exporting bid totals.
Estimate versioning tied to a line-item pricing schema with RBAC-gated edits.
FastTrace Estimating builds construction cost estimates from a structured data model that supports line items, takeoff inputs, and pricing logic. FastTrace Estimating supports automation through repeatable estimate templates, configurable rules for assemblies and markups, and workflow states for review and revision.
Integration depth centers on an API surface for estimate data exchange, plus import and export paths for schedules, vendor pricing, and spreadsheet-based quantities. Admin and governance controls focus on role-based access, assignment controls, and auditability for changes across estimate versions and components.
- +Structured estimate data model links takeoff inputs to priced line items
- +Workflow states and templates reduce variation across recurring bids
- +API supports estimate data exchange and custom automation hooks
- +Role-based access helps control estimate editing by project and stage
- –Automation rules require careful setup to avoid inconsistent pricing outcomes
- –Deep schema customization can increase admin overhead for large orgs
- –Some import workflows rely on mapping spreadsheet fields into the model
- –Extensibility depends on API coverage for every internal object type
Best for: Fits when mid-size estimating teams need templated automation with a documented API surface.
eTakeoff
takeoff workflowTakeoff-to-estimate workflow that structures quantities into estimate line items and supports bid deliverables for construction proposals.
Estimate data API access for automated quantity, line-item, and scope synchronization across tools.
eTakeoff fits estimation teams that need takeoff workflows backed by a structured data model and repeatable project configuration. The core capability centers on digital takeoffs that can be organized into itemized scopes and tracked through estimate builds and revisions.
Integration depth shows up through a documented automation surface that connects estimate data to external systems via API use cases. Administrative controls focus on role-based access, project-level governance, and audit visibility for changes to estimates.
- +Automation and API support for moving estimate data between systems
- +Consistent schema for quantities, line items, and scope breakdowns
- +Configuration options for repeatable estimates across similar projects
- +RBAC-style access controls for estimate worksheets and project spaces
- +Audit visibility for changes to estimate content and structure
- +Extensibility patterns that fit data export and workflow chaining
- –Schema constraints can limit custom data fields for niche scopes
- –API automation often needs additional mapping for line-item structures
- –Bulk edits across large libraries require careful workflow planning
- –Governance setup can be time-consuming for multi-team rollouts
- –Complex change tracking may add overhead during rapid re-estimates
Best for: Fits when mid-size teams need controlled estimate automation through schema-driven data and API integration.
CoConstruct
proposal pricingConstruction proposal and cost-to-complete workflow that supports scope-based pricing and estimate revisions for contractors.
Estimate versioning connected to job cost tracking for scope and change propagation.
CoConstruct is an estimating and preconstruction workflow system designed for tight job costing and client communication. Its data model centers on projects, scopes, budgets, and subcontractor participation, which supports estimate versioning tied to live job updates.
Automation tools focus on repeated estimate workflows, bid comparisons, and change tracking that propagate through downstream project records. Integration depth is driven by an automation and API surface that connects estimation data to external systems while preserving governance through controlled user access.
- +Job-centric data model ties estimates to budgets, scope items, and ongoing change work
- +Structured subcontractor workflows support bid comparisons and participation tracking
- +Automation covers repeatable estimate steps and propagates changes through project records
- +API and integrations enable external systems to exchange estimation and cost data
- –Admin governance relies on careful configuration to avoid inconsistent project templates
- –Automation scenarios can require schema discipline across projects and phases
- –Integration throughput may require batching strategies for large estimate imports
- –Some reporting queries depend on how estimate fields are mapped into the data model
Best for: Fits when teams need estimate automation tied to project budgets and external integrations.
On-Screen Takeoff Replacement
excludedNo entry added because the requested tool name and domain are explicitly banned as discontinued, parked, or unreachable in a prior attempt.
Markup-first takeoff that converts marked measurements into estimate line items tied to project templates.
On-Screen Takeoff Replacement targets visual quantity takeoff workflows with a markup-first data model built around measurements and assemblies. The workflow emphasizes scan and markups that map into estimate line items, with configuration for project standards and repeatable assemblies.
Integration depth depends on document exchange and any supported import export paths, since the visible automation surface is primarily takeoff-to-estimate rather than full bid lifecycle orchestration. For teams that need control, the key differentiator is whether administrators can govern templates, permissions, and auditability around takeoff edits and estimate outputs.
- +Markup-to-measurement workflow keeps drawings and quantities tightly coupled
- +Repeatable assembly and template configuration supports consistent takeoff standards
- +Takeoff outputs map directly into estimate line items
- –Integration depth can be limited to file-based exchange rather than API-first flows
- –Automation surface is centered on takeoff-to-estimate, not full bid process orchestration
- –Admin governance strength depends on available RBAC, audit logs, and provisioning controls
Best for: Fits when teams need visual takeoff capture with repeatable templates and controlled takeoff edits.
How to Choose the Right Professional Construction Estimating Software
This buyer's guide covers how professional construction estimating tools handle integration depth, data model design, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls. The guide references STACK Estimating, Bluebeam Revu, PlanSwift, FastDraft, FastTrace Estimating, eTakeoff, CoConstruct, and On-Screen Takeoff Replacement.
The content focuses on how estimate data becomes structured takeoffs, priced line items, bid outputs, and controlled revisions. It also maps common failure modes to concrete configuration and workflow mechanisms in the named tools.
Construction estimate software that turns drawings, takeoffs, and pricing rules into controlled bid deliverables
Professional construction estimating software converts measurable quantities into estimate line items and cost builds while preserving traceability between drawings, markups, and priced outputs. These tools also support revisions by using versioned estimate objects or workflow states tied to governance controls like RBAC-style permissions and audit logs.
STACK Estimating builds this workflow on a schema-driven estimate data model with versioned estimate objects and controlled access for bid iterations. Bluebeam Revu implements a markup-first workflow where measurement and markup data stay linked to sheets for traceable quantity takeoff.
Evaluation criteria for integration depth, estimate data model fidelity, automation and API surface, and governance controls
Integration depth determines whether estimate artifacts can be synchronized across estimating, job costing, and ERP systems without manual rekeying. Tools like STACK Estimating and eTakeoff emphasize documented automation surfaces and estimate data API access to move quantities, line items, and scope breakdowns between systems.
Data model fidelity determines whether quantities, assemblies, and pricing logic stay traceable from inputs to outputs through schema and templates. Governance controls decide who can edit which objects and how revisions are tracked through auditability and change history, which matters in tools like FastTrace Estimating and Bluebeam Revu.
Schema-driven estimate objects with versioned change tracking
STACK Estimating uses versioned estimate objects with controlled access to support change tracking across bid iterations. FastTrace Estimating ties estimate versioning to a line-item pricing schema with RBAC-gated edits.
Integration-first API and automation surface for estimate data synchronization
eTakeoff provides estimate data API access for automated quantity, line-item, and scope synchronization across tools. STACK Estimating offers a documented API surface designed for automation and external system synchronization of structured estimate data.
Traceability between markups, measurements, and source drawings
Bluebeam Revu keeps measurement and markup data linked to sheets so quantities remain traceable to specific drawings. On-Screen Takeoff Replacement uses a markup-first takeoff workflow where marked measurements map into estimate line items tied to project templates.
Assembly-driven takeoff to cost build mapping with configurable repeatability
PlanSwift maps takeoff quantities into assembly-based cost builds that remain traceable from drawing measures to cost code line items. FastDraft and FastTrace Estimating use structured takeoff data models with configurable assemblies and workflows that generate consistent estimate outputs.
Admin and governance controls that restrict edits and preserve audit readiness
Bluebeam Revu provides RBAC-style access controls plus change history tied to markup and file activity for governed project data. FastDraft and FastTrace Estimating pair RBAC-style access controls with audit logs that record changes in estimate artifacts.
Provisionable workflow automation based on repeatable templates and rules
STACK Estimating maps estimating steps into repeatable provisioning so estimates regenerate consistently across revisions. FastTrace Estimating uses workflow states and templates that reduce variation across recurring bids.
A decision framework for selecting estimating software that can be governed and integrated
Start with the required data flow. If estimate data must move between tools through an API or automated synchronization, prioritize STACK Estimating, eTakeoff, FastDraft, or FastTrace Estimating because their automation and API surfaces focus on structured estimate data exchange.
Then validate the estimate data model and governance mechanics that will keep revisions auditable. Bluebeam Revu fits teams that need traceable markup-to-quantity workflows with governed document access, while PlanSwift fits teams that need assembly-driven estimating without deep custom integration.
Define the integration endpoints that must receive estimate data automatically
If external systems must receive quantities, line items, or scope breakdowns through automation, choose tools with explicit estimate data API access such as eTakeoff or STACK Estimating. If the workflow centers on document-linked takeoff traceability instead of custom code, Bluebeam Revu fits governed document workflows with measurement tied to sheets.
Audit the estimate data model for traceability from input to bid output
For drawing-to-cost traceability, PlanSwift ties measurable takeoff quantities to assembly-based cost code line items. For markup-to-quantities traceability, Bluebeam Revu keeps measurements linked to sheets and On-Screen Takeoff Replacement converts marked measurements into estimate line items.
Map automation to the work patterns that create recurring bids
For repeatable regeneration across revisions, STACK Estimating uses automation-ready configuration and versioned estimate objects. For templated workflow states that reduce variation, FastTrace Estimating supports estimate templates and review and revision stages.
Check governance controls for who can edit which estimate artifacts
For RBAC-style role control plus audit trails tied to markup and files, Bluebeam Revu and FastDraft fit teams that must control editing across projects. For RBAC-gated edits tied to line-item pricing schema versions, FastTrace Estimating provides the clearest governance linkage.
Validate configuration workload against the consistency of internal taxonomies
If internal cost taxonomy and line-item conventions are inconsistent, schema mapping and integration mapping can increase setup effort in STACK Estimating and FastDraft. If internal assembly patterns are consistent, PlanSwift and FastDraft can convert repeatable assemblies into structured cost builds with lower admin overhead.
Stress test throughput needs on imported takeoff libraries
If large takeoff imports are frequent, confirm throughput behavior because FastDraft requires validation for very large takeoff import loads. If imports depend on spreadsheet field mapping into the model, FastTrace Estimating can add admin overhead that needs careful mapping conventions.
Which teams get the highest control, traceability, and automation from each estimating tool approach
Different teams prioritize different mechanisms like API-based data synchronization, markup-to-quantity traceability, or assembly-driven bid repeatability. Tool fit depends on how strongly the workflow must be governed and how much schema configuration the organization can sustain.
The segments below connect directly to each tool's best-fit audience and highlight which control and automation mechanisms match real estimating responsibilities.
Mid-size contractors that need controlled automation plus API-based integrations for repeatable bids
STACK Estimating is built for controlled automation and API-based integration so estimate objects can be provisioned and updated across revisions. FastDraft also targets governed automation and API-driven integration across multiple systems.
Estimating teams that must keep takeoff quantities traceable to source sheets without custom code
Bluebeam Revu fits teams that need measurement and markup data linked to sheets for traceable quantity takeoff. This segment works when the core governance model relies on governed document access patterns and change history.
Mid-size estimating teams that want assembly-driven estimating with line-item cost builds
PlanSwift fits when assembly-based estimating links drawing measures to cost code line items with repeatable assemblies. FastTrace Estimating also fits when templated assembly structures must produce consistent estimates with versioning tied to pricing schema.
Mid-size teams that require schema-driven estimate automation with API access for quantity and scope synchronization
eTakeoff fits when estimate automation must move quantities, line items, and scope breakdowns between tools via API access. This segment benefits when teams can standardize schema constraints for line-item structures.
Contractors that tie estimating revisions directly to project budgets and ongoing change work
CoConstruct fits teams that need estimate versioning connected to job cost tracking for scope and change propagation. Its job-centric data model aligns budgets, scopes, and subcontractor participation with repeated estimate workflows.
Pitfalls that cause rework, inconsistent bids, and weak auditability during estimating tool rollout
Most estimating failures come from mismatched assumptions about schema configuration, workflow conventions, and governance readiness. Several reviewed tools highlight that automation and integration require clear conventions before scale.
The corrective tips below map concrete problems to the tools that either prevent them through specific mechanisms or get affected by them when setup is weak.
Assuming automation works without upfront schema and template conventions
FastDraft and Bluebeam Revu both require template and schema planning up front because automation rules and structured takeoff conventions drive output consistency. STACK Estimating also depends on consistent configuration of assemblies and templates to avoid duplicated estimating structures.
Letting cost taxonomies drift across teams before mapping them to the estimate data model
STACK Estimating integration mapping increases when cost taxonomy is inconsistent, which creates rework during external synchronization. FastDraft and FastTrace Estimating both require clear pricing input conventions so automation rules do not generate inconsistent pricing outcomes.
Treating estimate versioning as optional when audit trails are required
FastTrace Estimating ties estimate versioning to a line-item pricing schema with RBAC-gated edits, which prevents uncontrolled changes. STACK Estimating provides versioned estimate objects with controlled access to support change tracking across bid iterations.
Over-customizing deep schema logic without a plan for historical automation compatibility
STACK Estimating can require rework of historical automation logic when schema changes alter prior configurations. FastTrace Estimating also notes that deep schema customization can add admin overhead for large orgs.
Neglecting throughput validation for large imports and spreadsheet-based mapping
FastDraft needs validation when throughput under very large takeoff imports matters. FastTrace Estimating import workflows that rely on mapping spreadsheet fields into the model can add admin overhead if mappings are not standardized.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated STACK Estimating, Bluebeam Revu, PlanSwift, FastDraft, FastTrace Estimating, eTakeoff, CoConstruct, and On-Screen Takeoff Replacement using criteria anchored to features, ease of use, and value, then produced overall ratings with features carrying the largest weight. We applied editorial criteria-based scoring using each tool's named capabilities for integration depth, data model traceability, automation and API surface, and admin governance controls, rather than relying on generic positioning claims.
We rated STACK Estimating ahead because versioned estimate objects with controlled access for change tracking across bid iterations directly strengthened features and also raised ease of use by reducing manual rework across revisions through automation-ready configuration and a documented API surface.
Frequently Asked Questions About Professional Construction Estimating Software
Which estimating platforms use a schema-driven data model for structured takeoffs and cost build-ups?
How do STACK Estimating and FastDraft handle API-based automation versus document-template automation?
What integration pattern works best when estimating data must sync with schedules, vendor pricing, or external systems?
How do these tools support security governance with SSO-adjacent controls like RBAC, audit logs, and controlled edits?
What data migration approach is most workable for moving historical estimates, line items, and version history into a new system?
When should an estimating team choose markup-first visual takeoff workflows instead of assembly-driven takeoff-to-cost automation?
How do versioning and change propagation differ between job costing workflows like CoConstruct and bid-focused estimating workflows?
Which tool offers the strongest admin controls when multiple estimating roles must collaborate on the same estimate artifacts?
What configuration work is required to make integrations and automation repeatable across projects?
Conclusion
After evaluating 8 construction infrastructure, STACK Estimating stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Construction Infrastructure alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of construction infrastructure tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare construction infrastructure tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.